Search for: "T. R. T."
Results 261 - 280
of 304,476
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2010, 11:31 pm
t? [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 12:45 am
Das heißt, der Anspruch sollte alle wesentlichen Merkmale ausdrücklich angeben, die zur Definition der Erfindung erforderlich sind. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
This part is interesting because it shows the type of evidence gathered in witness hearings and what the Board makes of it.Oral disclosureRequest not to hear the witnesses Dr Wallukat and Dr Kunze[30] By an interlocutory decision in accordance with A 117 and R 117 the board decided that it was necessary to hear Dr Wallukat and Dr Kunze as witnesses.[31] The witnesses were summoned in accordance with R 118. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Pursuant to R 126(1) this written submission is deemed to have been received on January 1, 2009, and, as this is a day on which one of the filing offices of the EPO is not open […], on the following day (R 134(1)), here Friday, January 2, 2009. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
The applicant filed an appeal; on July 24, 2009, Board 3.5.05 set the decision aside and remitted the case to the first instance “with the order to grant a patent on the basis of the main request ... and a description and figures to be adapted thereto” (T 408/06).The ED issued a communication under R 71(3) on January 12, 2010. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 8:56 am
" Michael R. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 2:18 pm
"Don't Expect the Supreme Court to Change Much": Law professor Cass R. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 6:13 am
Soru önergesi veren Işık’a cevap veren Ergin, ‘taahhüdü ihlal’ suçunun Türkiye’ye özgü bir suç olduğunu ve ‘Türk tipi’ olarak nitelendirilebilecek bu suç nedeniyle 2004’den bu yana 84 bin 857 kişinin cezaevine girdiğini ortaya koydu.Bakan Ergin, yürürlükteki İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nun yerine, dünya ve… [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:01 pm
Thus, the Board concurs with a corresponding finding in decision T 861/03 [6.2]. [1.2] Hence, the present case is pending and, consequently, the Board has the power and obligation to issue a decision on the appeal. [1.3] NB: This decision has already been commented here (in French). [read post]
17 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm
However, an indication required pursuant to R 64a) together with R 26(2) EPC 1973 in order to legally identify the DSTG company, i.e. the address of the appellant, was missing. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent department of the appellant is not a small unit where the cross-check mechanism may exceptionally be dispensed with (see T 428/98 [3.5]). [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
According to the established case law of the Boards of appeal of the EPA, a violation of the right to be heard is a substantial procedural violation.The contradiction between the decision that had been given orally and the decision that had been notified in writing violates the requirements of R 111(1) and also constitutes a substantial procedural violation (see T 666/90 [2.2.2], where R 68(1) EPC 1973 was applied).[4.3] Both substantial procedural violations justify the… [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
However, no comparative tests were provided with respect to these examples.It is additionally noted that document D7 specifically discloses further DMTD-based metal passivator components B-5, as outlined above in point [3.2] (cf. formula (XXIV), R’ = isopropyl, hexyl, decyl). [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
” (R 29(3) EPC 1973)Such a claim is, as a rule, referred to as independent claim. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In the present case the patent proprietor filed a request for re-establishment into the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.The factual situation was as follows (sorry for the length, but I find the modus operandi interesting):Mr Adrian F. had worked for 26 years in the law firm representing the appellant but had retired from the partnership on June 30, 2011. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
The Opponent didn’t bring up an original bound manual either. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 9:54 am
Gurgen Petrossian has published »Staatenverantwortlichkeit für Völkermord«: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ereignisse der Jahre 1915–1923 im Hinblick auf die armenisch-türkischen Beziehungen (Duncker & Humblot 2019). [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 11:03 am
(See also T 714/93, T 749/01, and T 436/02). [1] To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 5:19 am
Partner Nina T. [read post]
