Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 881,601
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2007, 2:11 am
One is from the Court of First Instance (Case T-15/05 Wim de Waele v OHIM - a failed attempt to register the shape of a sausage as a Community trade mark). [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 5:31 pm
Thus it is inadmissible in the appeal proceedings and does not have any legal effect (see T 9/04). [2.3] To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 8:00 am
Leaked Letter, Arbitration Challenge Threatens AT&T’s T-Mobile Acquisition International Business Times Tech August 16, 2011 AT&T’s possible acquisition of T-Mobile has faced some obstacles in recent days. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
T 64/02). [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 3:10 pm
Supreme Court decision, A T & T v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 3:09 pm
J 3/95 and T 167/93). [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 8:58 pm
DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL, don’t change a thing. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 10:46 am
TED OLSON: Obama doesn’t have to defend Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal after the Opposition Division (OD) had revoked the patent under consideration because it found the disclosure not to be sufficient within the meaning of A 100(b).Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:A urinary catheter assembly comprising at least one urinary catheter (1) having on at least a part of its surface a hydrophilic surface layer (6) intended to produce a low-friction surface character of the catheter by treatment with a liquid swelling… [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 1:29 am
In a recent case from the Boards of Appeal (T 1285/15), the Opponent attempted to circumvent the issue by arguing that a collection of clarity issues amounted to insufficiency when taken in combination. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 6:47 am
The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.This decision T 0670/19 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T067019.20201120. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
This opinion corresponds to the one given in T 2464/10. [2.2.3] The “remaining subject-matter test” applied to claim 2 of the new main request Following the principles laid down in decision G 2/10 with respect to the “gold standard”, the remarks in this decision must be interpreted as an instruction to the Board to apply the further test developed therein, in addition to the principles set out in decision G 1/03, in order to carry out a full assessment of whether an… [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 4:16 am
In October 2021, the General Court (GC) issued the ruling in T-254/20, Roshen v EUIPO, which drew the attention of this Ukrainian Kat.Louis-Michel enjoys researching Soviet brandsThe dispute arose when “Krasny Oktyabr”, a Russian confectionary company, registered an EU trade mark (EUTM) in Class 30 for a figurative sign representing a lobster. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
T 1067/97, which had been cited by the opponent.However, the Board is of the opinion that this question is irrelevant in the present context. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the fax shows that the page containing the notice of appeal in Italian was received at 18:26:21 whereas the Italian version was received at 18:26:37, i.e. 16 seconds later.The Board won’t have it:[1.2] The opponent (appellant 1) considered that the requirements of R 6(3) concerning the reduction of the appeal fee were not met, that the paid amount was not correct and that therefore, the appeal lodged by the patentee was to be rejected as inadmissible. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
(my emphasis)The Board confirmed that this claim was not clear:[1.1.1] It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO that, in order to ensure legal certainty, a claim must clearly define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention; the clarity of the technical features contained in the claim thus serves the purpose of ensuring that the public is not left in any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered by a particular claim and… [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 9:53 am
T 1688/20 and the novelty sub-range test). [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 4:11 am
Secondly, even when debate has been formally closed, although this normally terminates the possibility of new submissions, debate may be re-opened at the discretion of the Board [T 595/90], which should also apply to EPO departments of the first instance. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 7:22 am
This board is not a big fan of US-style claim dependenciesThis is an opposition appeal for a patent that originated from a US-PCT application. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 5:05 am
This blog post is a first one of a series of blog posts in which we discuss past and recent decisions which are relevant to the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). [read post]
