Search for: "Lang, in Re"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,022
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2012, 1:10 am
The re-engineering of the print cycle is a much welcomed change. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 3:10 am
One aspect of this defense was that the doctrine of equitable intervening rights applied to the claims of reissue patent RE 41,134. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 3:10 am
Cal. 2008) for the proposition that the doctrine of intervening rights applies to re-issued patents and does not extend to certificates of correction. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 1:10 am
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 2:10 am
” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 3:10 am
Therefore, it seems clear that any disposition of a Commission action by a Federal Court should not have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in cases before such courts. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 3:10 am
The Board explained that since the de minimis features did not impact the overall appearance of the claimed design, citing In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 1380 (CCPA 1982) for support (“The elimination of the end portions of the waistband and of any cinching of the waist portion these ends might cause are de minimis changes which would be well within the skill of an ordinary design in the art and do not create a patentably distinct design. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 3:10 am
In reversing the ITC, the CAFC found that the “predetermined event” recited in claim 33 of the patent at issue (RE 36,847), was not limited to a cat exiting the litter box. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 3:10 am
A similar question was recently explored at the CAFC (In re Tanaka) relative to new, dependent claims. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 3:10 am
Likewise, as noted in the petition decision linked above, although the reexamination is vacated by the estoppel as to the particular setttling defendant, the unfinished business of the reexamination may be easily “re-started” by another competitor. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 3:17 am
” In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056 (emphasis added). [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 8:45 am
Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/32/31&Lang=F Prière de nous envoyer vos contributions écrites en format Word à l’adresse suivante: civilsociety@ohchr.org. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 8:17 am
C’est le sujet de l’heure parce que lignes directrices envoyées aux examinateurs du USPTO sont mélangeantes, parce que les agents de brevets sont mélangés, et parce que les avis sur comment sortir de ce piège sont… mélangés. [read post]
28 May 2009, 5:32 am
Wir rech Ânen damit, dass die Be Âru Âfungs Âver Âfah Âren in Pa Âtent Âsa Âchen künf Âtig nur noch halb so lange dau Âern wer Âden wie bis Âher. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 3:10 am
Yet, as one defendant found out recently, perceived gamesmanship in patent reexamination tactics may re-direct that very same bullet to one’s foot. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 3:55 am
For Federal Circuit review of patentability the criterion is correctness, whether initially decided in the district courts, the Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission, or the Court of Federal Claims. . . . .These procedures have become beclouded, as in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 3:10 am
One of the more well known uses of a patent reexamination filed after a district court judgment was illustrated in In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. [read post]
14 May 2012, 1:10 am
For inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, the petitioner (including any real party in interest or privy of the petitioner) is estopped by statute from re-litigating any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in an earlier proceeding. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:10 am
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:15 am
Microsoft’s brief, as well as several of the supporting amicus briefs, cite to In re Etter,756 F.2d 852 (Fed. [read post]
