Search for: "Sally Doe"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,144
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2023, 1:24 am
This obviously does not mean that China is not committed to patent protection. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
It does seem that the process of anonymisation has been holding up timely publication, and hopefully this will improve as the UPC becomes more familiar with and streamlines the process. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 12:23 am
In any case, the proposed Directive does not provide the required clarification on the scope of activities covered, e.g., the unclear limitation as to “when a reference medicinal product is used” in the preamble, the use of the optional word “may” under point (b) that can lead to diverging implementation by the Member States and the fact that the regulation makes reference to a medicinal product but omits any activity required to manufacture or supply the active… [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 4:18 am
Briefly, the judge summarised the principle that where the patentee says in the description that the technical effect identified can be achieved either by means A or B but goes on to claim only means B, this is a clear indication from the patentee that means A does not fall within the scope of the claims, whether as a matter of normal construction or equivalence. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 12:29 pm
HSLF does not judge candidates based on party affiliation or any other issue. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 4:30 am
She does so with so much wit and charm that her interlocutors usually agree to help before they have quite understood what is involved. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 6:32 am
March, Bryan King, Heath DeJean, and Sally Yin. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 6:32 am
March, Bryan King, Heath DeJean, and Sally Yin. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 3:19 am
At this juncture Edger Brinkman asked the parties for their views – it is of course accepted that there is an urgency requirement, but when does the clock start ticking? [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 6:10 am
’ But according to the president of the court: ‘As R. 323 RoP refers to Art. 49 (5) UPCA abovementioned which (…) does not specify any timeframe for such request possibly made “at any time during the written procedure”, it shall not be interpreted as precluding that an application to use the language in which the patent was granted can be lodged before the statement of defense is lodged (…). [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 4:42 am
Russian patent law, like many other jurisdictions, does not limit applicants for a number of divisional applications to be filed. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 9:55 am
As a specialist in a non-UPC-member state, how does the new system influence your activities? [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 2:56 am
Oppo: “Unlike normal patents, the use, by another of a patent held by one party, does not, ipso facto, entitle the party, as a right, to an injunction restraining the other party from using the patent. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 3:40 pm
Furthermore, the test to be applied in the Netherlands does not seem entirely the same. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 2:43 am
(…) The Local Division also does not see the possibility of longterm harm resulting from the granting of the provisional measures or their refusal as being one-sided to the detriment of Respondents. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 2:15 am
And what does that mean for HR professionals tasked with developing leaders in their organization? [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 3:40 am
Although the Decree does not implement concrete measures (which will be proposed by the Executive Group of the Economic-Industrial Health Complex in the coming months), one of the main pillars highlighted is the Partnership for Productive Development (PDP) program. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 3:05 am
The fact that the Application concerns a revocation action concerning a European patent which, as argued by the Applicant, “confers rights on the patent proprietor(s) with erga omnes effect”, does not make this assessment different. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 5:47 am
I told her that it helps when Donice travels with me as often as she does. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 5:55 am
The court determined that the combination of color and shape effectively communicates to consumers that the candy is watermelon-flavored and, as such, does not qualify for protection under trademark law. [read post]
