Search for: "T. B.1."
Results 141 - 160
of 29,936
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2011, 9:49 pm
The B-1 can cost up to $1,550 less than the P-1. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 2:08 am
Mai 2018 und 1. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal… [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal… [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
The appellant (patent proprietor) lodged an appeal in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 2 159 174.The opposition of opponent/respondent I had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on the grounds of Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC (insufficiency of disclosure) and Article 100(c) EPC (unallowable amendments).The intervention of… [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
The appellant (patent proprietor) lodged an appeal in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 2 159 174.The opposition of opponent/respondent I had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on the grounds of Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC (insufficiency of disclosure) and Article 100(c) EPC (unallowable amendments).The intervention of… [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:47 am
Main request1.1 The opponent raised objections against claim 1 of the main request under Article 100(c) and (b) EPC. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Case Law, 6th edition, VII.E.16.4.1, and VII.E.16.5.4; cf. e.g. also T 33/07; T 321/07; T 1168/08; T 1634/09). [read post]
20 May 2019, 8:52 am
So even if the plaintiff can't get the employment injunction he wants with his DTSA claim, he might get it with a Pennsylvania or Ohio trade secret claim.Much Ado About § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(1)(I)Here is the thing. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:44 pm
Whereas Rule 64(b) EPC 1973 had required "a statement identifying the decision which is impugned and the extent to which the amendment or cancellation of the decision is requested", Rule 99(1)(b) and (c) EPC only required "an indication of the decision impugned" and "a request defining the subject of the appeal".The letter of 17 March 2015 was not simply a mere debit order; it also contained an indication that it related to the filing of an… [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 5:35 am
<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GenderAndTheLawBlog/~4/b-L6b0wIzkI" height="1" width="1"/> [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:45 am
Article 100(b) EPC, sufficiency of disclosure[...]3. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 10:31 am
The purpose of which was to help 403(b) plan sponsors get ready for the January 1, 2009 deadline for new IRS 403(b) regulations. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 10:31 am
The purpose of which was to help 403(b) plan sponsors get ready for the January 1, 2009 deadline for new IRS 403(b) regulations. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
G 1/05 [11.1] and T 600/08 [2.3]. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 9:27 am
I say she didn't see that because (a) SpongeBob lives in a pineapple under the sea, and (b) SpongeBob wouldn't do that anyway. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm
Decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06 were made in the context of divisional applications. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 2:13 am
The wording of independent claim 1 of the main request is as follows:"1. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 3:17 pm
So let's assume that fact for present purposes: B's an adult and out of the house, but formerly lived with Mom and B.Hypo 1: Mom and B then divorce. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 2:46 pm
It hasn't even proposed a regulation to implement section 953(b)(1). [read post]
