Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 461 - 480
of 20,081
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2018, 7:36 am
An opposition had been filed against the patent, based on the grounds of Article 100(b) and of Article 100(a) EPC together with both Articles 54 and 56 EPC.The opposition against the patent was rejected by the opposition division which considered the subject-matter of the claims as granted to fulfil the requirements of Article 54 and 83 EPC. [read post]
1 Aug 2010, 6:56 am
Actually, we don't really phrase the question that way, not initially. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 1:52 am
T 727/00, Reasons, point 1.1.4).1.6.3 The board notes, however, that most decisions following this well-established approach relate to amendments based on lists of non-con [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 1:36 am
Note that the Board also does not mention T 1989/18 of 16.12.2021 that concluded that, as a general rule, not is not required to bring the description in line with (amended) claims intended for grant.Summary of Facts and SubmissionsI. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
Therefore, he always knows whether he was within our outside the claimed domain of protection.This is why the present case is not comparable with the problems which T 256/87 and T 252/02 had to deal with. [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:10 am
According to Bart, the Board found the matter so crystal clear that they did not see the need to refer the question to the Enlarged Board. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
T 867/05 relates to a change from “a membrane material for use in dialysis ... [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 10:23 am
Moreover, the withdrawal of the request misled the general public into believing that the Appellant no longer intended to pursue its subject-matter. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 5:34 pm
Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires that the sentencing court shall, for “any disputed portion of the pre-sentence report or other controverted matter,” rule on the question or determine that a ruling is unnecessary, a rule that requires “strict compliance” (Fernandez-Angulo, 897 F.3d at 1516; accord Houston, 217 F.3d at 1208). [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 9:14 am
§ 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 5:00 am
" [56 RCNY 1-05 [b][5][iii]]. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 11:48 am
” Société Des Hotels Meridien v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 3:26 am
”It follows, [para 11] that “[t]he offences set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 92 are, as a matter of plain reading, not cumulative, but separate. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:25 pm
“If B&G didn’t want consumers to think that the can contained butter, one wonders why it said ‘Butter,’ front and center. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 8:35 am
The district court nonetheless denied certification once more, because the putative class wasn’t cohesive enough under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:15 am
Curiously, there is an absolute judicial privilege for statements made in connection with and relevant to a judicial proceeding, so normally one wouldn't expect to find "defamatory matter" in a court filing. [read post]
29 May 2007, 5:16 am
Isn't it ironic that the Court's remedy would only result in more delay. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 11:21 pm
So, to illustrate the due diligence concern stated above in (1), if Trident decides to truncate itself to T, it may have to contend with this T and that T (stylized). [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 10:51 am
(b) 18 U.S.C. 799. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 10:00 am
It doesn’t matter how large or small they are. [read post]
