Search for: "DOES 1-54"
Results 641 - 660
of 3,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2015, 1:17 pm
The conclusion of pretrial proceedings does not occasion entry of a judgment, and the order remanding actions to their original districts (assuming the actions had not already settled in the MDL court, as most commonly occurs) would not be the dispositive ruling challenged on appeal. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 4:04 pm
Not to be outdone, in April 2010 the Slovak Parliament adopted a new law to recognise the PDO ‘Tokaj’. this new law entered into force on 1 June 2010. [read post]
16 May 2013, 5:01 pm
.*** Translation of the French original ***[1.1] Claims 1 of the main request and of auxiliary requests 1 to 3 have been amended by introducing the subject-matter of claims 5, 7, and 8 of the patent as granted (which correspond to original claims 5, 7, and 8). [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:53 am
” Arnold J stated “I do not consider that such arrangements [those covered by claim 1 but not in the priority document] are clearly defined alternatives to the other arrangements covered by claim 1. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 6:48 pm
Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1353–54 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 6:30 am
D7 ist daher für den erteilten Anspruch 1 Stand der Technik gemäß Artikel 54(2) EPÜ.1.3 In ähnlicher Weise wie das Streitpatent beschäftigt sich D7 mit Emulgatorzusammensetzungen, die eine hohe Säurestabilität aufweisen und somit die Emulgierung von Lebensmittelfarbstoffen ermöglichen (Absatz [0006]). [read post]
29 May 2018, 3:26 am
As argued by the PP, a legal provision for a later non-admittance of previously admitted documents does not appear to exist in the EPO. [read post]
25 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Under these circumstances, it may remain open whether the lasers mentioned in general terms in D4 are “arrangements for carrying out surgical laser treatments of the cornea” within the meaning of claim 1.[3.6] As none of the other documents of the state of the art discloses the claimed combination of features, the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel within the meaning of A 54(1) and (2). [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
The question arises as to whether the behaviour of the ED in the proceedings up to refusal deprived the applicant of the right to be heard (A 113(1)), and whether the decision was sufficiently reasoned (R 68(2)). [4.3] Decision T 939/92 referred to by the appellant in the statement of grounds of appeal (followed for instance in T 1242/04 [9.2]) sets out that A 54(2) does not limit the state of the art to written disclosure in specific documents. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC? [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
These are described in the SEC's Press release of April 1, 2015.Press Release SEC: Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements Agency Announces First Whistleblower Protection Case Involving Restrictive Language FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE2015-54 Washington D.C., April 1, 2015 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced its first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in… [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 8:30 am
Dissent at 1–3, 8–9. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 9:59 am
§ 1295(a)(1). [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 10:59 pm
Comment A couple of thoughts on this decision: 1. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:03 am
In particular: when does the actual transfer need to take place? [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
T 511/92).As the overall context of document D0 does not allow the skilled person to understand without doubt which of the two figures is correct, the distinguishing feature cannot be considered to be unambiguously disclosed.Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel within the meaning of A 54(1)(2) EPC 1973 over the disclosure of document D0.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 3:57 am
The precedents Articles 49 and 54 TFEU provide for the freedom of establishment. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 5:47 am
Appellant Br. 53–54.(...)We agree with Sunovion. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 2:23 pm
Code 54 et seq., by intentionally excluding deaf and hard of hearing visitors from accessing the videos on CNN.com. [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 11:01 am
(my emphasis)The Board found this claim to lack clarity:[1] Claim 1 of the sole request submitted during the OPs does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC 1973. [read post]
