Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 41 - 60
of 53,754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2011, 8:33 pm
Second, repeat after me: “My 1L grades don’t matter. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 11:01 am
This failure amounts to a substantial procedural violation requiring that the decision under appeal to be set aside and the case be remitted to the first instance (see T 278/00). [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the knowledge of the method and the conditions for determining the parameter is required for the parameter to be unambiguously defined (see T 412/02 [5.8-9]). [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 10:45 pm
So says Barry: Spelling don’t matter. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
Furthermore, they submitted that, judging from the various activities of the [patent proprietor] in other patent matters, the [patent proprietor] was obviously not prevented by the explosion in dealing with those matters. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 4:49 am
State of New York -- the "Small Cities" case -- the State brought on Eric Hanushek and David Armor to mount the time-worn, discredited "money doesn't matter" defense. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
R 137(3), last sentence, EPC provides that no further amendment may be made without the consent of the ED. [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
T 72/95 [5.4]). [2.2] According to the appellant, claimed subject-matter as a whole should be examined for the presence of an inventive step once the subject-matter as a whole has been found to meet the technology criterion of A 52(1)(2)(3). [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 5:07 am
No matter how substantially a proposed merger may lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, competitors of the combining firms face formidable barriers that often prevent them from suing under section 4 or section 16 of the Clayton Act. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
T 708/00 [17], T 377/01 [3.1], T 274/03[5-6], T 915/03 [4 [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 11:01 am
This is expressed, for example, in the provisions of R 51(4)-(6) and R 58(4)(5) [EPC 1973]. [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 19/87 [5]; T 668/89 [3]; T 417/00 [2.3] T 1829/10 [2.4]). [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 11:00 am
However, decision J 27/96 is concerned with R 88 EPC 1973 (R 139 EPC 2000), which applies to corrections of errors in documents filed before the EPO, whereas the [opponent] is objecting to a decision concerning a correction under R 140 EPC 2000 (R 89 EPC 1973), which applies to decisions of deciding bodies of the EPO. [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]
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]
24 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1459/05 [4.3] the board decided not to adopt the existing jurisprudence, according to which there was no power to examine matters of clarity under A 84 when the amendment consisted of a combination of claims as granted. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:01 pm
If, on the other hand, it is doubtful whether that information is incorrectly defined, then a correction is ruled out (points [2] and [3] of the reasons).[3] The opinion G 3/89 of the EBA, supra, held furthermore that any correction under R 88 EPC 1973 (corresponding to R 139) is of a strict declaratory nature and thus has not to infringe the prohibition of extension of subject-matter under A 123(2) (see Headnote 2). [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
Thus the proceedings were to be continued with the liquidator as party as of right (kraft Amtes) (see also T 917/01).The arguments brought forward in favour of a suspension of the proceedings in analogous application of R 84(2) did not persuade the Board. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
Under R 100(2) (corresponding to A 110(2) EPC 1973 in conjunction with R 66 (1) EPC 1973) the board shall invite the parties “as often as necessary” to file observations. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 8:25 am
The NYT quoted AT&T as saying it will “vigorously contest this matter in court. [read post]
