Search for: "In Re: Grant, J., Appeal of: Grant, J."
Results 1 - 20
of 1,942
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2015, 8:02 am
We grant the application for leave to appeal and, for the reasons that follow, we shall vacate the sentence and remand to the circuit court for re-sentencing. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
According to the established case law of the Boards of appeal, ignorance or wrong interpretation of a provision of the EPC cannot justify re-establishment. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:00 am
It follows that the application for re-establishment of rights under Article 122(1) EPC must be granted and the decision under appeal must be set aside.OrderFor these reasons it is decided that:1. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 11:06 am
(J&J), Cordis Corp. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The mention of the grant in the Official Journal, which was the relevant act of the EPO in J 38/92, was undoubtedly a step in the proceedings for grant. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 6:31 pm
J. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 4:55 am
“All a judge has to do is get burned once by not granting a stay, going to trial to the end, and then having claims invalidated by the Board and then having to have an appeal,” says John J. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Where the earlier application proceeds to grant, an application is pending up to but not including the date of publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin (Notice dated 9 January 2002, OJ EPO 2002, 112; J 24/03 [4]; J 7/05 [2.1]; G 1/09). [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 5:29 am
In addressing the parties' dispute as to whether the court's order granting a preliminary injunction (upheld on appeal) was admissible to establish willfulness under In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 8:28 am
(Granted )Docket: 09-1205Issue(s): 1. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
This request was ultimately denied by the Legal Board of Appeal (decision J 1/11), essentially because by the time the request for correction had been filed notice of the withdrawal had already been recorded in the European Patent Register (on February 6, 2009). [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 6:19 am
Lord Justice MunbyA summary of Re J (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1231, in which a father successfully appealed against residence and contact orders.The case concerned a boy 'J', who is 'about 9½ years old' and whose parents were never married. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 5:08 pm
By not doing so, it has violated its duty of clarification (Aufklärungspflicht). [10]The Board then discusses decisions J 15/92 (where re-establishment was granted on the basis of the principle of good faith), J 34/92, J 6/90, and J 6/98 (where re-establishment was refused on the basis of legal security). [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 7:12 pm
Neighbors Supeno and Ernst appealed the decision of the Superior Court, Environmental Division upholding the Town of Addison Development Review Board’s (DRB) grant of certificates of occupancy for two detached decks and a conditional use permit for an enclosed deck to applicants Linda J. and John P. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 7:12 pm
Neighbors Supeno and Ernst appealed the decision of the Superior Court, Environmental Division upholding the Town of Addison Development Review Board’s (DRB) grant of certificates of occupancy for two detached decks and a conditional use permit for an enclosed deck to applicants Linda J. and John P. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
In general, a mistake or ignorance of the law is an insufficient ground for re-establishment: see J 5/94 [3.1], J 27/01 [3.3.1], J 2/02 [8] and J 6/07 [2.4-5]. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:54 am
There it is stated as follows: "An application is pending up to (but not including) the date that the European Patent Bulletin mentions the grant of the European patent, or until the date that the application is refused, withdrawn or deemed withdrawn; if notice of appeal is filed against the decision to refuse, a divisional application may still be filed while appeal proceedings are under way (see Guidelines A-IV, 1.1.4)" However, this official information… [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
This appeal was against the refusal of a request for re-establishment by the Examining Division (ED).On August 30, 2008, the ED had sent a communication pursuant to R 71(3) inviting the applicant to pay the grant fee and to file the translations of the claims. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 3:10 am
In a judgment handed down today ([2017] UKSC 49) the UK Supreme Court, by a majority of 5:2, dismissed the appeal of the claimant from the refusal of Tugendhat J and the Court of Appeal to grant an injunction to prevent his name being disclosed in connection with a criminal investigation. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 10:41 am
The case stems from the travails of the law firm Morris J. [read post]
