Search for: "A. T."
Results 901 - 920
of 881,519
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 and T 798/93. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 9:37 am
Senior Advocate of the SCI, T R Adhyarujina has recently written (an abridged form of his speech at the Bombay High Court) in the Hindu about the disturbing trends in judicial activism by the Supreme Court of India. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 6:00 am
Dear Rich: What is the law regarding reproducing book cover artwork as bookmarks, t-shirts, buttons, etc.? [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The question has to be essential to reach a decision on the appeal in question.Moreover it was stated therein (reasons [10.3.2]) that the case law of the boards of appeal regarding computer-implemented inventions, as summarised in T 154/04, is consistent and has a sound legal basis in the Convention.Item 5 of the reasons of T 154/04 reads:(E) For examining patentability of an invention in respect of a claim, the claim must be construed to determine the technical features of the… [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 9:03 am
T 1079/08, Gründe 4; T 2001/12, Gründe 3). [read post]
22 Aug 2024, 4:43 am
The saga began in 2020 when T-Mobile completed its $23 billion merger with Sprint. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 11:07 pm
Y a-t-il de la jurisprudence ou de la doctrine sur le sujet? [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the Board agrees with the general principle of interpretation as set out in T 190/99, according to which, when considering a claim, the skilled person should rule out interpretations which are illogical or which do not make technical sense. [read post]
4 Feb 2023, 9:43 am
On January 19, 2023, it was widely reported that T-Mobile informed regulators in the United States that 37 million T-Mobile customers had [...] [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 12:31 pm
#tmobile" Mike Tito: "AT&T acquired T-Mobile? [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Thereby, said statement gave detailed reasons why the decision under appeal should be set aside and indicated the facts and evidence in support of the respective arguments.R 99(2) does not exclude that such evidence is submitted for the first time in appeal proceedings nor does it require that this evidence is admitted into the proceedings (see T 389/95 [1,3]).Therefore, the fact that the [opponent] relied inter alia on documents D6 to D13 in its statement setting out the grounds for appeal… [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 11:30 pm
G 1/10, supra, Reasons 12; see also T 1869/12, Reasons 4.5). [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal that it contested the… [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal that it contested the… [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 10:00 pm
The core decision where this follows from is this decision, T 1329/04. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Decision T 84/02 cited by the opponents and by the Board and decision T 73/88 are, therefore, contradictory, and, moreover, contrary to balance between the parties.The Board admits that the expression “by way of cross-appeal” does not fit very well into the procedural system of appeals under the EPC. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
In a recent post I have presented decision T 565/07 (and T 240/04) where auxiliary requests were refused because they were not converging. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
In a recent post I have presented decision T 565/07 (and T 240/04) where auxiliary requests were refused because they were not converging. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1515/07 and T 1411/08), or whether the features were erroneously overlooked or misjudged, i.e. an “error of judgement” (cf. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:18 am
You don't want to ride against traffic. [read post]
