Search for: "A. A. READ, Appeals Examiner"
Results 141 - 160
of 11,570
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2016, 4:47 am
Lars de HaasV.O.The Legal Board of Appeal of the EPO rejected the decision of the examining division that additional claim fees were due at the start of examination for claims added with the response to the international search report under Rule 161(1) EPC, even if at the end of the 31 month period the claims did not give rise to a time limit under rule 162(2) EPC to pay additional claim fees. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:18 pm
Read the full notice with all the details here. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:16 am
To start the appeal, read the determination letter and write a letter based on the issues you want to argue. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 9:02 pm
Last week, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) upheld a Patent Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
4 Dec 2022, 10:30 pm
Read the NY Times article here. [read post]
13 May 2022, 6:36 am
Before the Court was an appeal from an Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Warren County, which granted petitioner’s motion determining that the respondent triggered the in terrorem clause of an irrevocable trust of which she was a beneficiary. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 11:54 am
Continue reading [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 3:27 am
This is the second of three blogs examining the recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Lidl v Tesco[1]. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 2:17 am
Claim 1 of the request filed with the statement of the grounds of appeal reads:"1. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 2:20 pm
This new procedure eliminates two layers of review; previously the Patent Appeal Center and the examiner were required to review patent appeal briefs and evaluate their compliance with the formality requirements. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 6:20 am
This appeals court affirmed. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 8:15 am
Continue reading [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 10:00 am
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that even assuming the Petitioners were able to satisfy the elements of promissory estoppel, they would not suffer unconscionable injury if the Statute of Frauds were enforced. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 3:56 am
Samsung appealed and as part of the appeal, the Court of Appeal examined the scope of Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), which is typically sufficient for a platform to invoke as an ‘intermediary-only’ defence (aka a ‘safe harbour defence’) and avoid liability. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 4:58 am
Currently, as the statute above reads, judges are required to consider such factors but it is in their individual discretion as to how much weight to apply to each individual relevant factor. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 1:05 am
However, in cases where there are isolated Board of Appeal decisions conflicting with the Guidelines, Examiners usually choose to follow the Guidelines instead of the Boards of Appeal. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 2:49 pm
The arguments the judge uses are in many ways a sneak preview of what the Court of Appeal must consider when it hears the case, so the Read-the-whole-case rating for this stay grant is 5.R. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 3:30 am
For more information, please continue reading. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:43 am
This is the first of three blog posts examining the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in the highly publicised dispute between Lidl and Tesco, concerning Tesco’s use of a blue and yellow sign (the “Tesco Sign”) for its Clubcard promotions. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:28 am
At the EPO the Boards of Appeal have the function of keeping Examining and Opposition Divisions in line, and the Enlarged Board in turn oversees the work of the Appeal Boards. [read post]
