Search for: "MATTER OF T J B"
Results 121 - 140
of 3,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2015, 7:35 am
Altec Industries, Inc., 6-14-cv-00079 (TXED March 3, 2015, Order) (Gilstrap, J.) [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 4:35 am
Case Background Belinda J. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 5:40 am
" The Court found that "[t]he timing of the undersigned's announcement of retirement is important in considering [J&J]'s delay" because J&J filed its motion only three months after "the undersigned informed President Barrack Obama, via a letter on September 29, 2010, that the undersigned would be retiring effective October 1, 2011. [read post]
25 May 2011, 3:01 pm
T 198/84) requires that the following criteria be taken into consideration: the selected sub-range has to be (a) narrow, which is doubtlessly the case here (20 nm) and (b) sufficiently far removed from the known boundary values and examples, respectively, which is also the case here. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 8:17 am
B. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 2:26 pm
By Sarah J. [read post]
18 Mar 2007, 3:52 am
This is about Michael B. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 4:30 am
For the second installment, we turn to law professor Michael J. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 9:01 pm
ENDNOTES [1] In the Matter of Stephen J. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 7:20 am
Infringement – applying the Doctrine of Equivalents At paragraph 304 Birss J noted that “neither party devoted much effort” to a point on added matter and, likewise, this note does not consider the point further. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:29 pm
However this is dangerous territory, for it begs the question of how reliable any trial process based upon oral testimony can ever be (don’t go there – but see some of Mostyn J’s speeches). [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 4:52 pm
Donald J. [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]
28 Jul 2023, 11:49 am
Matter of J-G-T- , 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 5:29 am
J. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 5:29 am
J. [read post]
8 Mar 2022, 4:00 am
J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined as to all but Part II–B. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 6:38 pm
P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). [read post]
