Search for: "MATTER OF L F G" Results 41 - 60 of 1,063
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2014, 9:00 pm by Laurent Teyssèdre
Les travaux préparatoires confirment l'intention du législateur de retenir une définition large de l'invention brevetable, en préférant le terme "invention" à "produit" ou "procédé".La conception d'invention brevetable retenue dans la CBE se distingue donc du système américain, selon lequel une invention brevetable doit concerner "any new and… [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 9:12 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Reebok Int'l, 14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Serv. 2d 371 (1982) and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), decision clarified on denial of reh’g, 483 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007)). [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 6:30 am
Serv. 2d 371 (1982) and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), decision clarified on denial of reh’g, 483 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007)). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
Decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06 were made in the context of divisional applications. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 11:31 am by Giles Peaker
So I shall call them L – the leaseholder – and F – the freeholder – to avoid multiple Gibbins related confusion. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 12:55 am by Martin Steiger
Clio und Rocket Matter als führende Anbieter bieten vollständige Kanzleisoftware an. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 7:17 am by Jessica Kroeze
The taking into account of this argument necessarily leads to the consideration of the applicant's argumentation concerning the inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:39 pm
Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 413 F. 3d 324, 329 (CA2 2005). [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 7:00 am by Wolfgang Demino
District Court with subject matter jurisdiction.INDIA SAMONE KAHCLAMAT, Plaintiff,v.WILLIAM NASH, ET AL., Defendants.No. 3:18-cv-464-G-BN.United States District Court, N.D. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 8:30 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
“[A] disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark,” nor does “a Section 2(f) claim . . . remove matter from the mark. [read post]