Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 20,066
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2010, 3:11 am
The Board thus concluded that the claimed subject matter does not meet the requirements of Art. 56 EPC and revoked the patent. [read post]
5 Jul 2015, 3:49 pm
I had heard that changes were coming, but I didn’t know what they were until very recently. [read post]
17 May 2012, 2:11 am
(Orin Kerr) Judge Katherine B. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 1:03 pm
If there’s enough change, it doesn’t matter if it’s commercial. [read post]
3 May 2017, 11:27 am
A or B. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 9:11 am
And eventually you hear yourself saying, “But I did A, B and C for him/her and s/he still doesn’t appreciate it. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 8:10 am
Three months later, the lenders referred the matter to the Illinois disciplinary authorities who began an investigation. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
Some time ago, we have seen T 783/09 where Board 3.3.04 stated:[5.6] However, given the term “can” in the citation from decision T 12/81, the absence of a direct and unambiguous disclosure for individualised subject-matter is not a mandatory consequence of its presentation as elements of lists. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 12:38 pm
But then I don’t agree that Rule 9(b) should apply to statutory claims that don’t require any intent.) [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 3:11 am
Mongolian Member of Parliament B. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 7:50 am
Marshall effectively invalidated §157(b)(2) as to any “core” matter that Article III prohibited the bankruptcy court from deciding as a “core” and final matter. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 1:00 pm
But that ain't so. [read post]
20 May 2016, 2:03 pm
Deception rules then implement the disclosure obligations; it’s about setting up an information market, and thus it’s not just intentional deception that matters but the quality of information. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 8:20 am
Yes; the fact that the judgment is international law doesn’t mean it has no meaning. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
” [11] Thus, prima facie and when regarded separately, the meaning of both claims 13 and 14 is clear, i.e. they both relate to the same subject-matter. [12] However, as noted in point [2] above, the meaning of a claims is determined in the context of the whole application, i.e. also in context with other claims. [12.1] When claim 13 is regarded in context with claim 14 an uncertainty about the meaning of claim 13 arises in because claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, yet covers the same… [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 8:35 pm
” Keeping promises has two components: not saying you’ll do things that you aren’t able to do, no matter how much you want to; and doing what you’ve said you would do, no matter how much you don’t want to. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 12:07 pm
(MCL 700.2502(1)(b)3. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
Prior to the CPR the test under the rules was that any document “relating to any matter in question” was discoverable. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
Prior to the CPR the test under the rules was that any document “relating to any matter in question” was discoverable. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 8:00 am
The NLRB, however, included this demand in its subpoena (available in full here): If any document responsive to any request herein was withheld from production on the asserted ground that it is privileged, identify and describe the following: (a) author; (b) recipient; (c) date of original document; (d) subject matter of the document; and (e) nature of the privilege asserted. [read post]
