Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 521 - 540
of 20,081
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2014, 5:38 am
T. [read post]
28 Dec 2006, 1:11 pm
Keep in mind that in order to obtain costs under Rule 219(b), you don't have to win the underlying case, but merely prove a fact that was previously denied. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 5:54 am
T 169/83, headnote, reasons 3.5 and 3.7). [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 12:04 pm
B. [read post]
7 May 2020, 5:14 am
The question is "whether consumers will perceive matter in the mark as a flag. [read post]
10 Sep 2024, 3:00 am
Aside from Loper Bright considerations, the results of the presidential election may determine whether the FTC pursues the matter. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 11:01 am
The test for deciding whether an amendment contains subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed is whether the skilled person would be presented with information which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from what was presented by the application as filed, even when account is taken of matter which is implicit to a person skilled in the art (Guidelines C VI-5.3.1, December 2007). [2.2.2] The objected feature specifies that when the first rotor… [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 6:33 am
What that opinion’s going to be is another matter. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
European patent No. 1 773 302, filed on 16 February 2005 and claiming the priority date of 23 July 2004 from US application 10/898061 (D1), was opposed on the ground that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and was insufficiently disclosed (Article 100(b) EPC).The following documents were among those cited during the first-instance proceedings:D1: US2005/0152971 (application No. 10/898061), filed on 23 July 2004, priority application of the… [read post]
9 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
Question (b) has therefore to be answered in the negative. [read post]
8 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Most of the case law cited by the appellant (T 128/87, T 14/89, J 13/90) is also discussed in G 2/97. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 4:25 am
(b) In view of the information disclosed in paragraphs [0019] and [0020] of the description, it was clear that citric acid could be present in the formulation of claim 1 both as a chelator and as a solubilising agent. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 9:07 am
" That lack of reference to the quality of the dismissal didn't make a difference, because Rule 41(b) says that "all dismissals, including those under Rule 12(b)(6) operate as an adjudication upon the merits unless the trial court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:00 am
P. 16(b)(4) to modify the schedule to name a new expert. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 12:14 am
However, examining divisions should make sure that an internet disclosure used as state of the art is reliable in terms of both the publication date (see decision T 1066/13, Reasons 4 to 4.3; see also the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, G-IV, 7.5.1) and continued accessibility to its content in the version made publicly accessible on that date (see decision T 3071/19, Reasons 5; see also T 0013/20, Reasons 4).9. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 7:53 am
” Strength: the court bungles conceptual strength (conflating suggestive and descriptive), but it doesn’t matter because (a) there’s not much evidence of marketplace strength and (b) it doesn’t matter anyway because this is a labeling case [the court doesn’t say (b) outright but it’s true]. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
c); (b) a first combining unit (26) operatively connected to an output of said processor and for combining current altitude (h) with commanded altitude (hc) to produce a differential commanded altitude signal (? [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 8:52 am
B saw C a couple times later in the day; at one point B told C he shouldn’t be driving and to return the car to A immediately. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 2:03 pm
(I think this is wrong, because the extra requirements of §43(a)(1)(B)—competition, materiality, and “advertising or promotion”—address all the Supreme Court’s concerns in Dastar, providing a way to protect consumers when a misrepresentation of origin really would matter to them. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
(b) Until 1 May 2003 it also held good for appeal proceedings (point [24] below). [read post]
