Search for: "C. G., Matter of" Results 361 - 380 of 3,607
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2017, 12:48 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
L. 367 (2014) : In fact, some believe that the one of the first "patent trolls" was Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin. n8 Whitney's first attempts of manufacturing and selling the cotton gin proved to be commercially unsuccessful, forcing Whitney to sue plantation owners that used Whitney's patented gin in order profit from his invention. n9AND from DAVID G. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 3:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
The prior-ADR agreement between K-C and P&G were termed the ADR process a "non-binding arbitration. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
”The same wording was used in decisions G 4/93 [5] and G 1/99 [6.1].It is thus clear that the appeal proceedings aim at contesting a decision.[2.2.3] In decision G 1/99 [6.1] the EBA further pointed out that: “Indeed, issues outside the subject-matter of the decision under appeal are not part of the appeal. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
According to G 1/93 [16], if an undisclosed added feature, although limiting the scope of protection conferred by the patent, has to be considered as providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, it would give an unwarranted advantage to the patentee contrary to the purpose of A 123(2). [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
It follows that features (d), (f), (g) and (h) are not technical features of the claimed liquid formulation in the sense of R 29(1) and decision G 2/88. [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 12:38 pm by Danielle N. Craft
The court therefore properly focused its analysis on the defendant’s incomplete discovery, failed compliance, and improper certification under Rules 37(c)(1) and 26(g). [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 12:38 pm by Danielle N. Craft
The court therefore properly focused its analysis on the defendant’s incomplete discovery, failed compliance, and improper certification under Rules 37(c)(1) and 26(g). [read post]
20 Oct 2023, 12:38 pm by Danielle N. Craft
The court therefore properly focused its analysis on the defendant’s incomplete discovery, failed compliance, and improper certification under Rules 37(c)(1) and 26(g). [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
It was found that the disclosure of the invention was of such a general nature that it deprived the skilled person of the information he/she needed to understand how to proceed from the first reaction value collected in step A through steps B, C and D to the determination on a probabilistic basis of the genotype of step E. [read post]
15 May 2018, 11:27 am by Dennis Crouch
Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 9:52 am by Monica Scherer
  For more information on Maryland divorce and child custody matters contact an experienced divorce attorney. [read post]