Search for: "MATTER OF R R A K"
Results 41 - 60
of 3,915
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Professional representatives are subject to the disciplinary power exercised by the Institute of Professional Representatives (epi) or the EPO (A 134a(1)(c)) whereas the disciplinary power to which legal practitioners are subject is a matter of national law and is exercised by national organisations or offices. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:57 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Kichens, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1626 (14 June 2011) Thomas, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1497 (26 May 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Killen v Horseworld Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1600 (QB) (24 June 2011) Shah & Anor v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2011] EWHC 1713 (QB) (04 July 2011) High Court (Chancery Division) National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc v ABB Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1717 (Ch) (04 July 2011) High Court (Family… [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 7:20 am
Daniel R. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
This principle, restated in R v Giannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1, has attracted strong criticism on the grounds that the dissimilarity between principal and accessory is one of strikingly different factual positions, thereby breach [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 10:54 am
Daspin, a/k/a "Edward (Ed) Michael", Luigi Agostini, and Lawrence R. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Only the Boards of appeal can, possibly after setting aside the decision and re-opening proceedings pursuant to A 112a(5), decide on that matter – as a matter of principle the EBA is not competent to do so.ORDERFor these reasons it is unanimously decided that: The petition for review is rejected as clearly unallowable.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:01 pm
,R-1, where g.c.d is a greatest common divider and q0 = 1, determining {pj} from {qj} using pP(j) = qj, j = 0, 1, ... , R-1 where P(j) indicates a predetermined inter-row permutation pattern, permuting positions of the information bits in a jth row in accordance with Cj(i) = C([ixpj] mod (p-1)), where j = 0, 1, 2, ... , (R-1), i = 0, 1, 2, ... , (p-2), Cj(p-1) = 0, and Cj(p) = p; performing inter-row permutations according to the predetermined inter-row permutation pattern… [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
One necessary corollary of the decision to grant is that the EPO is no longer competent to deal with any further matters relating to the text of the patent (see decision T 777/97 [3]). [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
The latter is only possible in exceptional cases, as e.g. provided for in R 138. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 10:14 am
k? [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
”] the subject matter of the amended claim is wholly contained in that of the original claim, and the Guidelines state that an objection under R 137(5) should not be raised when a feature is added to a claim in order to meet an objection such as lack of novelty or inventive step. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
Therefore the way in which this judicial body has exercised its discretion on a procedural matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the EBA since this would need a review of all facts and circumstances of the case, which necessarily would mean entering on the merits of the substantive issue. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 12:00 am
Does she talk as if she has experience with this type of matter? [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 12:53 pm
April 27 – May 1, 2008 San Diego Convention Center 111 West Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92101 www.visitsandiego.com K&L Gates partner David R. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 11:01 am
If, as in this case, there was no denial of the right to be heard in arriving at the decision on the remittal request, then al1 arguments as to other steps which might have been taken if remittal had been ordered are speculative and irrelevant (see R 12/09 [8]). [10] Third, the issue whether to remit or not was a matter of substance in the appeal proceedings which the EBA cannot consider in petition proceedings (see R 1/08 [2.1]). [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the petitioner argued that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) had been violated in the appeal proceedings.[19] Although the petitioners argue at some length that A 112a(2) and R 104 must be so construed as to allow a complaint under Article 6 ECHR, the EBA has in decision R 16/09 [2.3.5-6] held that the list of grounds contained in those two provisions is exhaustive and that an alleged procedural defect which does… [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 8:16 pm
In R. [read post]
23 May 2024, 11:33 am
prepared for the Attorney General of the United States by Special Counsel Robert K. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the fax shows that the page containing the notice of appeal in Italian was received at 18:26:21 whereas the Italian version was received at 18:26:37, i.e. 16 seconds later.The Board won’t have it:[1.2] The opponent (appellant 1) considered that the requirements of R 6(3) concerning the reduction of the appeal fee were not met, that the paid amount was not correct and that therefore, the appeal lodged by the patentee was to be rejected as inadmissible. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
If any reader can shed some light on this matter, please do so.To download the whole decision, click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
