Search for: "In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10"
Results 301 - 320
of 5,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Sep 2022, 1:32 pm
Error #1: The court has no jurisdiction over this matter. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:52 am
Held: 1. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 3:39 pm
Russ notes that: As a side note, I have spoken to several patent attorneys/agents about the new rules and I have not yet found one who would even agree to write an ESD, no matter what the cost. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1] This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 6:55 am
As a matter of logic, one would assume we’d all agree it’s not. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 3:57 am
— Consequently, the subject—matter of claim 1 as granted lacked novelty under Article 54(3) EPC in view of the use of the cold flow improver of Example 1, disclosed identically in the parent application and in the priority document. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 11:19 am
The Digitalisation Regulation lays down the rules for the use of electronic communication between competent authorities in judicial cooperation procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters, and for the use of electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities in judicial procedures in civil and commercial matters (Art. 1). [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 6:20 am
In 2021, in response to new Regulation S-K amendments, companies expanded disclosures related to HCM and DEI matters in their proxy statements and 10-Ks and saw a marked increase in investor support for DEI-related shareholder proposals compared to prior years. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
"The United States Supreme Court has applied a two-part test to determine whether there was a right of access under the First Amendment [see Press-Enterprise Co. v Superior Ct. of Cal., County of Riverside, 478 US 1, 8-10], and the [New York State] Court of Appeals has used that test to determine whether there is a right of access to a professional disciplinary hearing;4. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 2:45 am
In view of the substantial procedural violations reimbursement of the appeal fee is equitable in accordance with Rule 103(1)(a) EPC.OrderFor these reasons it is decided that:1. [read post]
26 May 2016, 3:18 am
PwC has advised the Company that it continues to have discussions with the SEC’s Staff to resolve this interpretive matter. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 8:02 am
Therefore, a translation of the international application was not to be filed under Article 22(1) PCT and Article 158(2) in conjunction with Rule 107(1)(a) EPC 1973. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 9:01 pm
As a non-trivial aside, I should say I’m not sure why it should matter so much. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 1:00 am
The same process and composition was disclosed in D14 and it was concluded that claim 1 of the main request was not novel over D14.Auxiliary requests 1 and 2 did not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary requests 3and 4 was not novel over D14, for the same reasons as the main request.VI. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 5:05 am
Id., at 1. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 8:31 am
Applying a deferential standard meant that the appellate court could not rule, as a matter of law, that the City’s interpretation of its own plan was completely misdirected. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 12:35 pm
Under the Proposed Rules, a company would be able to raise a maximum aggregate amount of $1 million through crowdfunding offerings in a 12-month period. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 11:57 am
Concerning the notice athttp://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/73fr32938.pdf [effective date of new rules on appeals is for all appeal briefs filed, on or after, December 10, 2008] David E. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
Alternatively, where remitting the matter would serve no purpose, the court may take the decision itself[10]. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 12:13 pm
Allen (relisted after 9/27/10, 1/14/11, 2/25/11 and 3/4/11 Conferences) Docket: 10-63 Issue(s): (1) Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that the purported state procedural default rule is “adequate” as a matter of federal law to bar federal habeas review of serious constitutional claims; and (2) whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no “cause” to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was… [read post]
