Search for: "C. G., Matter of" Results 401 - 420 of 3,607
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2014, 12:33 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Two of the then minor children of J, A and C, are petitioners herein. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:16 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix.
In the Matter of S (a child), heard 20 February 2012. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver
The EBA has noted further that “[T]o restrict the application of R 28(c) (formerly R 23d(c)) to what an applicant chooses explicitly to put in his claim would have the undesirable consequence of making avoidance of the patenting prohibition merely a matter of clever and skilful drafting of such claims” (see point [22] of the Reasons). [21] The present Board does not see any reason to apply this approach of decision G 2/06 to the situation underlying… [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 8:57 am by Ron
But just as P&G faces risk in extending its brand, so too would BigLaw. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In particular with regard to fresh grounds for opposition, for the above reasons the Enlarged Board considers that such grounds may in principle not be introduced at the appeal stage” (emphasis added by the Board).[1.3.1] As admitted by the [patent proprietor] at the OPs clarity does not represent a ground of opposition as specified in A 100(a) to 100(c). [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 1:01 am by Sai Vinod
Consequently, the provisions are challenged as violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 7:15 am
  The reasons for revocation are limited to added subject-matter in respect of granted claim 1 (alternative claims submitted during the hearing by Nestec were not admitted into the proceedings). [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am by UKSC Blog
This appeal considers whether proof of an offence contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 brought against a business operator as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires proof of mens rea and/or some culpable act or omission on the part of the business operator. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The appeal considered whether proof of an offence contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 brought against a business operator as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires proof of mens rea and/or some culpable act or omission on the part of the business operator. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Consequently, the product-by-process features of claim 1 of the main request is not clear and does not permit the conclusion that the inevitable process product thereof is novel over the prior art catalysts. [3.7] Therefore, the product-by-process features in claim 1 of the main request do not clearly define patentable subject-matter and the claim does not meet the requirements of A 84. [3.8] To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:43 pm by Badrinath Srinivasan
(c) However, Section 42 only applies to applications made under Part-I if they are made to a court as defined. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 1:05 am by Rose Hughes
The Board of Appeal found that the only difference between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art was the oral administration feature discussed above. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 3:06 pm by Renee Kolar
  Rule 9 of Section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts provides that disputing parties who consent to this process must be ready for trial in nine months (including completion of mandatory mediation). [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:10 am
Article 53(c) EPC excludes from patentablity processes for producing plants and animals by essentially natural processes. [read post]