Search for: "J. DOE # 4"
Results 141 - 160
of 8,714
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In its decision J 9/84 [4] the Legal Board of appeal explained that the main purpose of R 31 EPC [1973] was “to induce the applicant to limit the protection sought to a certain number of claims, in the first instance for the purposes of the European search”. [read post]
2 May 2013, 2:22 am
J. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 6:14 am
Brown J. held that this test should be applied in determining whether a testator had complied with s. 4(1)(a) of the SLRA. [read post]
8 Oct 2023, 1:29 pm
Parris J. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
G-J. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
The significant date is that on which notification was actually received by a person responsible for the application (see J 7/82 [3-4]).According to the established jurisprudence, no further ten days under R 126 will be added to this two months period. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
Attorney and AuthorCopyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2018-2019) by Raymond J. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 12:48 pm
District of Columbia, J. [read post]
11 Feb 2022, 6:11 am
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, on Friday, February 11, 2022 Editor's Note: This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 4-10, 2022. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 3:03 am
In Angeles v Aronsky 2012 NY Slip Op 30851(U) April 2, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 100091/2009 Judge: Judith J. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 3:04 am
” The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes). [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
In this regard the Board points out that this wording of R 36(1) EPC is identical to the wording of the former R 25(1) EPC 1973 and, therefore, the corresponding case law can be taken into account.[6] The present Board agrees with the statement of the Legal Board of Appeal in decision J 18/04 that the term “pending earlier European patent application” in R 25 EPC 1973 did not establish a time limit having a point in time at which the pending status of an application begins and… [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The decision does not exceed the margin of discretion conferred to the President of the EPO in application of R 152(1). [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 5:49 am
-Kent J. [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 7:32 am
The request for correction relates to the addition of an earlier priority claim to US12/819,944 of 21 June 2010 (P1).4. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:34 am
Trump Administration Amends Presidential Proclamation That Temporarily Suspends New H-1B, H2B, J-1, and L-1 Visa and Travel from Abroad On June 29, 2020, the Trump administration issued an amendment to Section 3(a)(ii) of Proclamation 10052 (“Proclamation”) to suspend and limit foreign nationals attempting to enter the United States in H-1B/H-2B/H-4, L-1/L-2, or J-1/J-2 employment-based nonimmigrant visa categories. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
This is in line with decisions T 842/90 and J 20/00 where it was considered possible that the payment of an additional fee amounting to [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
J 37/89 [3.5]). [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 7:13 am
American Breast Care LP, 4-15-cv-02769 (TXSD March 17, 2016, Order) (Miller, J.) [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 1:21 pm
The Law Offices of Jeffrey J. [read post]
