Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 801 - 820
of 20,065
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2022, 5:12 am
This matters, they demand. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 1:09 am
This allowed the Court to move onto the matter of communication to the public, which third-parties cannot do. [read post]
UK judge declines Samsung's job offer, invalidates three 3G standard-essential patents in Apple case
7 Mar 2013, 5:21 am
EP1005726 on a "turbo encoding/decoding device and method for processing frame data according to QoS":Justice Floyd determined that this patent "a) is not entitled to the priority claimed, and is therefore invalid based on Samsung's admission, b) if entitled to priority, would nevertheless have been invalid for obviousness over both Bömer and Valenti, c) if valid, would have been infringed by Apple's UMTS compliant devices." [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
The Board is of the opinion that this applies mutatis mutandis to a disclaimer trying to exclude subject-matter that is not encompassed by the claim at all. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 12:08 pm
But none of that matters to him. [read post]
25 Feb 2021, 2:57 pm
” B & B Hardware, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 6:16 am
Bruce Shirk and Anne B. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 6:32 am
B. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 12:17 pm
Didn’t matter how original symbols/words were or what other choices were possible at the time of creation. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 1:23 pm
Just ask one of the 90’s most popular R&B singers Toni Braxton, who has now filed for bankruptcy twice in the past 15 years. [read post]
17 May 2023, 4:54 am
Couldn't we equally say that the problem is not B.2 but B.1? [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:00 am
This isn't great. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:00 am
This isn't great. [read post]
15 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The appellant had implicitly acknowledged this contradiction by limiting the claims to signed data […]. iii) The advantages linked to the new features (b) and (c) were not related in any obvious way to avoiding an unauthorised manipulation, which was the only problem mentioned in the description, and the Guidelines for examination (C-IV 9.8.2) did not allow a corresponding reformulation of the problem […].[3] R 86(4) EPC 1973 lays down that amended claims may not relate to (1)… [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Other possible irregularities do not preclude rectification of the decision, since an applicant should have the right of examination in two instances (for example T 139/87, T 47/90, T 794/95).[4] Claim 1 of the request which formed the basis for the impugned decision has been amended such that present claim 1 is now directed to a system for humidifying gas for infusion into a patient eye comprising a gas source, as defined in former claim 5. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 10:58 am
Which is why the renowned John T. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 2:03 pm
(I think this is wrong, because the extra requirements of §43(a)(1)(B)—competition, materiality, and “advertising or promotion”—address all the Supreme Court’s concerns in Dastar, providing a way to protect consumers when a misrepresentation of origin really would matter to them. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
T 1886/06 [1.4.2]). [read post]
