Search for: "T. R. T."
Results 61 - 80
of 304,701
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
T 361/08 [13]).The admission of a request for reimbursement of further search fees that had been paid would lead to the Board dealing with the corresponding questions for the first time in appeal proceedings or remitting the case to the first instance (A 111(1)). [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
R 22 which is applicable during opposition proceedings according to R 85).[6] In the absence of any response from the appellant’s representative to its communication of 20 June 2012, the board concludes that the original appellant has lost its capacity to act in proceedings before the EPO. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 3:12 pm
R 71a and A 114(2) EPC 1973, on which it is based, therefore refer to late filed facts and evidence and not to new arguments. [read post]
5 Mar 2006, 4:40 pm
But when tax preparer giant H&R Block can't figure out its own taxes, maybe things are getting too complicated. [read post]
6 Jan 2008, 12:58 pm
In 2006, for example, the t-shirt read "Be Who You Are. [read post]
24 May 2011, 3:01 pm
This way of proceeding is stipulated both in Legal Advice n° 15/05 and in the Guidelines (C-VI 4.1) and is based on the case law of the Boards of appeal (T 1181/04, T 1255/04). [read post]
11 May 2011, 11:45 am
Mike Lee (R-Utah) was more positive. [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]
20 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 1242/04 [8.3] the Board has explained that R 45 relates only to the practicability of a search and not to the potential relevance of its results in subsequent substantive examination. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
The procedural position of the opponent can, as implicitly acknowledged in R 60(2) EPC 1973 and R 84(2), be transferred to the heirs, and accordingly the access of the universal legal successor to the opponent status is admissible (G 4/88 [4]). [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 6:25 am
<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GenderAndTheLawBlog/~4/9WZI-_K4Y8A" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:01 pm
”It is the Board’s opinion that this wording of R 4(5) allows the Board to assess the necessity of such an interpretation. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:01 pm
”It is the Board’s opinion that this wording of R 4(5) allows the Board to assess the necessity of such an interpretation. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Since no appeal procedure is pending, the Board can only remit the case to the department of first instance (following decisions T 21/02 and T 242/05). [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Reference was made in this respect to decisions T 528/96 and T 299/86. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 5:07 am
AT&T Inc. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
In this context, [opponent 2] made reference to R 43 and R 139. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 3:10 pm
Don't forget to send us your T Shirt size! [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, unsigned submissions by a party to the proceedings were deemed not to have been filed if, after a communication according to R 50(3) has been sent out by the EPO, they are not signed in due time. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:50 am
" About R-T Specialty, LLC R-T Specialty, LLC is a subsidiary of Ryan Specialty Group, LLC specializing in wholesale brokerage, MGU/MGA underwriting facilities and other services to agents, brokers and carriers. [read post]
