Search for: "T. K."
Results 461 - 480
of 20,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2022, 5:14 pm
Gesa Kübek (Univ. of Groningen), Christian J. [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 7:48 am
t? [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 1924/07 [10]). [read post]
13 May 2010, 5:26 am
MEGAN MCARDLE: Are Democrats Plotting to Steal Your 401(k)? [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 2:06 am
Despite the broad availability and benefits of 401(k) investing, only 41% of workers actually contribute to one, either because they don’t understand the value, or they can’t afford to. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 2:15 am
Employers with auto-enrollment features in their 401(k)s may choose to extend auto-enrollment to the part-timer participants but aren’t obligated to do so. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
On May 31, 2012, the board in case T 1242/06 handed down a second interlocutory decision in which it referred the following questions of law to the EBA: 1. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 11:45 am
Landmark decision T 1134/06 has provided some fundamental principles, but much remains to be done. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 11:45 am
Landmark decision T 1134/06 has provided some fundamental principles, but much remains to be done. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
In line with established case law of the boards of appeal, a patent application, being a legal document, may be its own dictionary and may define technical terms and determine how a skilled person has to interpret a specific term when used in the description or claims (see e.g. decisions T 500/01 [6] and T 61/03 [4.2]). [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 2:30 pm
András Tóth, Károli University Faculty of Law ICT Law Department; Károli University Faculty of Law Research Centre for Regulated and Network Industries offers Recent Developments of the National Enforcement of EU Competition Law. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 10:38 pm
NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), a divided Board in BE & K Construction Co., 351 NLRB No. 29 (Sep't. 29, 2007), holds that: We hold that... [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 3:05 pm
The Board won’t have it that way.Claim 1 of the main request read:Device (Vorrichtung) to convey work pieces, particularly suspended, plate-shaped work pieces like metal sheets or plates with at least a conveyor belt (1) revolving around a retaining device (Haltevorrichtung) (3) for conveyance of work pieces (W) adhering thereto, wherein for retaining the work pieces on the conveyor belt (1) a controllable or regulatable installation (Einrichtung) (6) for generation of negative… [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 3:39 am
, Türk toplumunun [...] [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 12:25 pm
401(k) plans have become a tremendously important funding source for retirement today and in the future. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
There is an interesting final remark on the composition of the Examining Division (ED).[3] It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that for a decision to be reasoned it must contain a logical sequence of arguments and that all facts, evidence and arguments essential to the decision must be discussed in detail (see for instance T 278/00 [2-4]; T 1997/08 [4]).[4] The Boards of Appeal have consistently decided further that a request for a decision based on the current… [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The first two conditions of R 76(2)(c) are therefore clearly fulfilled.[1.4] With respect to the last condition (facts and evidence), according to the established case law the notice of opposition must indicate the “when”, “what” and under “what circumstances”, in particular “to whom”, the alleged public prior use was made available (T 522/94 [headnote IV, 10, 12, 20 to 25]; T 328/87 [3.3]).[1.5] In the present case, the [opponent]… [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 6:19 am
The book concludes with closing remarks by Hein Kötz. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 2:17 pm
t? [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 11:01 am
T 506/91 and T 54/00. [1.2] The decision in T 386/04 referred to by the patent proprietor is not relevant since in that case the proprietor’s main request had been refused by the OD so that the proprietor was indisputably prejudiced by the decision; the question in the appeal was the admissibility of its main request, not the admissibility of its appeal. [read post]
