Search for: "MATTER OF T A-K J A-K"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,033
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2013, 5:01 pm
The four-month time limit laid down in the third sentence of A 108 concerns the filing of a statement of grounds of appeal, which is an entirely different matter. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
., T 240/01 [6]). [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
(T 428/98 and T 1063/03 [2]). [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
J 27/01 [3.3.2]). [read post]
29 Jun 2013, 11:01 am
NB: I found one decision taken on a Sunday (T 1309/11), but there is little if any doubt that this is an error. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 11:00 am
The residence or principal place of business of the professional representative used is of no relevance in that matter (T 149/85 [6]). [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
G 1/05 [11.1] and T 600/08 [2.3]. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
It does not matter in what form the subject of the appeal is identified, as long as it is clear. [read post]
10 May 2014, 8:25 am
Tabitha J. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
The appellant finally requested that the appeal fee be reimbursed.The reasons for the final decision of the Board read: [1] Although the present appeal was withdrawn from consideration by the Board of Appeal in respect of admissibility and allowability, the Board of Appeal, in the exercise of its inherent power, is authorised to examine the appellant's request for reimbursement of the appeal fee (see T 41/82 and J 12/86). [2] According to A 108 the notice of appeal shall be… [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 11:01 pm
Contents include:Special Section: Judicializing International RelationsKaren J Alter, Emilie M Hafner-Burton, & Laurence R Helfer, Theorizing the Judicialization of International Relations Marc L Busch & Krzysztof J Pelc, Words Matter: How WTO Rulings Handle Controversy Jeffrey K Staton & Alexia Romero, Rational Remedies: The Role of Opinion Clarity in the Inter-American Human Rights System Olof Larsson & Daniel Naurin, Split Vision:… [read post]
25 May 2022, 8:46 am
J. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
I owe the knowledge of this interesting decision to Le blog du droit européen des brevets.It illustrates that replacing one professional representative with another requires some care. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 4:53 am
I didn’t have to wait long : Holman J has done it in London Borough of Brent v C [2016] EWHC 1335 (Fam) (28 April 2016). [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The whole matter should be treated in analogy to a case where a priority was not validly claimed.[2.3] The Board cannot endorse this reasoning. [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]
1 Mar 2020, 4:48 pm
The action concerns an article published in the Sun on 28 April 2018 under the headline “How can J K Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ to case Depp after assault claim“. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 5:51 pm
Lewis and Andrew J. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The fact that the recipient (here: the PR) takes notice of the mail only several days or even weeks after [the receipt] is not relevant because the only legal condition, i.e. the delivery to him, is fulfilled (T 247/98 [1]; T 172/04 [4]; T 743/05 [1.6-8]; T 261/07 [1.6]; T 529/09 [4]).Decision T 703/92, which has been invoked by the [opponent] is not to be understood differently. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
J 03/00). [read post]
