Search for: "T. R. T."
Results 561 - 580
of 304,508
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2012, 5:56 am
And he definitely shouldn’t be chasing you. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 12:09 am
Dezember 2017, das Europäische Patent Nr. 1 849 951 in geändertem Umfang, das heißt auf der Basis des ersten Hilfsantrags, aufrechtzuerhalten, haben beide Parteien Beschwerde eingelegt. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
According to established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, to satisfy the requirement of R 68(2) a decision must contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which justify its tenor. [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
At the discretion of the OD or the Board of Appeal, amendments can be refused if they are neither appropriate nor necessary (see case law of the Boards of Appeal, 6th edition 2010, VII.D.4.1.2, second paragraph). [1.2] In its decision on the first appeal (T 911/06), the Board found that the main request and first auxiliary request valid at that time offended A 123(2) (see T 911/06 [7-8]) and that the patent as granted and the second auxiliary request valid at that time offended A… [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
To that extent, the decision does indeed not comply with R 68(2), first sentence, EPC 1973. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 3:00 am
The respondent admits that it had not requested to take a request for interruption of the oral proceedings into the minutes presuming that this was an essential of the oral proceedings which certainly would be mentioned in the minutes.First of all the Board again points to the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in R 2/12 reiterating the finding of the EBA that "it is the dut [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The [patent proprietor] also agreed that the earliest possible date of institution of proceedings was proven by E1. [1.2.3] Since, according to R 89(2), R 76 and R 77 are also applicable to interventions, and since it is stated in R 77(2) that any deficiency which is not a deficiency under A 99(1) or R 76(2) can be remedied within a period specified, it follows that opponent OII indeed filed E1 in good time because no period under R 77(2) had yet… [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 1:55 pm
Deland, FL — 70-year-old Tullie R. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
[3] According to the information available to the Board, the renewal fee for the 7th year and the corresponding additional fee had not been paid and the prescribed period of grace for payment according to R 51(2) had expired before the date of the OPs. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
R 44 EPC 1973), this concerns the content of the European search report. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the Board concludes that the appeal complies with the requirements of A 108 and R 99(2) and is admissible. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
By virtue of A 111(1) and R 100(1), these provisions are also applicable mutatis mutandis to appeal proceedings. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:19 am
Das Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen (BWO) hat einen Bericht über die Tätigkeit der Schlichtungsbehörden in Mietangelegenheiten veröffentlicht, der einen Vergleich des zweiten Halbjahres 2009 sowie des ersten und zweiten Halbjahres 2010 ermöglicht. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
The board, therefore, concludes that the main request does not satisfy the requirements of R 29(2) EPC 1973. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 1:00 pm
S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y night! [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
This was contrasted with the looking up of addresses in T 52/85. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 4:12 am
'"From "An Accidental Collection/How I amassed more T-shirts than I can store" by Haruki Murakami (The New Yorker).I appreciate Murakami's appreciation of Americans, and I just used the rhetorical device the T-shirt uses. [read post]
10 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Consequently, there is no obvious error which could be corrected under R 139. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
In the present case that might have included the [opponent] had it not decided not to attend the OPs but then it would clearly have been he, and not the [patent proprietor], who was responsible for requesting free translation at least one month before the date of the OPs (see R 4(1)). [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:50 am
In most legal systems and in the proceedings before the EPO, the burden of proof is distributed in such a way that each party has to present and prove the facts that are favourable to it, that is, the facts that support its own claim ( T 219/83, reason No. 13; T 270/90, reason No. 2.1).5. [read post]
