Search for: "B. Lang" Results 141 - 160 of 862
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2010, 3:04 am by Scott A. McKeown
 The rule, 37 CFR 1.953(b), allows parties to an inter partes patent reexamination to essentially skip directly to the appeal stage after first action. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 3:56 am by Scott A. McKeown
Contain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding. b. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 3:56 am by Scott A. McKeown
-Section 325(b) precludes stays of court actions when a motion for preliminary injunction is pending. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:15 am by Scott A. McKeown
For those terminations caused by the failure to present a timely filing, such as an interview summary (ex parte) or a response to an office action, it is possible to petition under 37 CFR § 1.137(b) to have the late papers entered and the termination vacated; thereafter, the patent reexamination proceeding continues. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 10:07 am by Gene Takagi
 Robert Lang, CEO of The Mary Elizabeth and Gordon B. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 3:18 am
L'Art 53 b) CBE exclut de la brevetabilité les procédés essentiellement biologiques d'obtention de végétaux. [read post]
7 May 2008, 1:48 pm
So lange diese gewonnen Käufer mehr sind als die, welche ich verliere, habe ich die Nase vorn. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 2:56 am by Kevin LaCroix
David Bergenfeld Laura Lang This past year was a very eventful one in the world of fidelity bond, commercial crime, and cybercrime coverages. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 9:58 am by Michelle Yeary
  So, after the gifts have been opened, the cookies eaten, the eggnog drunk and Auld Lang Syne sung – here’s something to think about for 2013. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:15 am by Scott A. McKeown
In the second draft, and now H.R. 3309, the general reference to § 282 has been changed to a contextual reference to § 282(b). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
., all appeals exhausted) 35 USC § 317 (b) is triggered, effectively forcing the USPTO to vacate the proceeding by operation of estoppel. 35 USC § 317 (b) provides: (b) FINAL DECISION.- Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit or if a final decision in an inter partes… [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 1:49 am
Teo Xuan Lang of Drew and Napier discusses a particularly interesting result recently reached in Singapore. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 12:56 am by Gene Takagi
I'll be moderating this panel discussion with Robert Lang, CEO and Founder of Americans for Community Development and creator of the first L3C; Bart Houlihan, Co-Founder of B Lab, the nonprofit driving systemic change through the Certified B Corporation, B Analytics, and the benefit corporation;  and Ron Roman, a business management faculty member at San Jose State University, and expect some lively discussion. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 4:00 am by Larry Bodine
Keynote Speaker:   Tom McCarty, Author and Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Managing Director, Six Sigma Practice Leader, Jones Lang LaSalle 2010 Faculty Joseph B. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:15 am by Scott A. McKeown
§ 112(b) the Court found the examiner showing under 112 (which is based on a requirement of clarity in claim drafting) demanded a persuasive rebuttal from the patentee. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
Certainly, options (2)(A) and (2)(B) seem to provide relatively straightforward mechanisms for the patent owner to lift the stay. [read post]
26 Aug 2008, 1:34 am
</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span lang="EN-GB"… [read post]
1 May 2013, 4:15 am by Scott A. McKeown
Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (here) In the Garmin IPR, patentee Cuozzo filed a motion for additional discovery seeking interrogatories, documents and what appeared to be a F.R.C.P style 30(b)(6) deposition on the topic of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. [read post]