Search for: "Abe Peters"
Results 1 - 20
of 315
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2024, 3:30 pm
It doesn’t sit too easily with T 116/18 either, which if anything adopted the opposite ab initio implausibility approach in holding that the opponent must demonstrate that there is a legitimate reason to doubt that the technical effect applies to the claimed subject-matter. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 7:53 pm
Peter Marks, to serve as the Commissioner’s designee for both the appeal and the opportunity for a meeting. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 1:36 am
As readers are well aware, this so-called “generic catchword” gave rise to three different lines of case law (Ab initio plausibility, Ab initio implausibility and No plausibility) and, down the road, it caused a lot of damage to legal certainty. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 10:00 am
Mann and Peter J. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 4:46 am
To cash out Abe, an outside investor, Peter, provided the financing. [read post]
15 Jan 2024, 3:16 am
After the Christmas break, the CJEU seems to have resumed this hobby with renewed vigour, as shown by the judgment issued last Thursday in case C-473/22 (Mylan AB and Gilead Sciences Finland Oy et altri). [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 3:33 am
In re Lizzo LLC, 23 USPQ2d 139 (TTAB 2023) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 5:51 am
We understand the permissive Order from the pen of Stefan Johansson of the Nordic-Baltic division is to be appealed, and it will be very interesting to see where the Court of Appeal judges’ sentiments lie – and whether or not they ultimately refer back to the precepts that have underpinned the approach of national systems or base their reasoning ab initio on what approach is most apt for the new system. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 7:40 am
The Court of Appeal took an identical approach ab initio: the owner of a patent application can bring an action for infringement under articles L. 615-3, L. 613-1, and L. 615-4 of FIPC. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:07 am
Those engaged in the debate included a leading authority on ABS licensing in the U.K., the managing director of an Arizona ABS law firm, a veteran legal tech executive and thought leader, and the leader of an innovation program at a major law school. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 11:40 pm
28 Abs. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm
See In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d 1567, 1572, 221 USPQ 315, 318 (Fed. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm
See In re Polar Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d 1567, 1572, 221 USPQ 315, 318 (Fed. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
But this flexibility is in line with decision G 2/21 of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal: it seems to be a recognition of ab initio implausibility, i.e., that evidence subsequent to the filing date can only be disregarded if the person skilled in the art had legitimate reasons to doubt that the technical effect could be obtained at the filing date (e.g., T919/15, T578/06, T2015/20). [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:06 pm
Sponsored by EurofinsLast year’s recipient: Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, University of Georgia, Griffin Food Safety Innovation AwardVitsab International AB received the Food Safety Innovation Award, given for the development of Predictive Diagnostics, its innovative new approach to food safety and quality testing. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
June 2023 has just passed, and the newly minted Unified Patent Court is of course still on everyone’s lips. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm
Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F. 3d 257, 263–264 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing cases); Wells v. [read post]
11 May 2023, 2:21 am
Second, he observed that the EBA’s harmonised approach is more akin to “ab initio plausibility” than the alternative. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 6:38 am
Given the impending (now issued) decision of the EBA in G2/21 the judge acknowledged the possibility of national law adopting in the future either the ab initio plausibility or ab initio implausibility standard and assessed plausibility under both tests. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 2:50 am
2) If the answer is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have considered the effect plausible (ab initio plausibility)? [read post]
