Search for: "In re J. R."
Results 1 - 20
of 7,235
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2011, 9:52 am
J. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
J 16/92). [read post]
1 Nov 2015, 10:52 pm
Il y en a maintenant plus de 180 qui ont été publiés, et malgré plusieurs changements professionnels, j’essaie de continuer à vous fournir régulièrement un contenu que j’espère de qualité. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 12:30 am
US representatives) may be held responsible for taking the necessary care (J 4/07).The appeal in J 05/18 related to a decision by the Examining Division to re-establish an application (EP12152933.3) following a failure to meet a further processing deadline (Article 121 EPC). [read post]
5 May 2014, 8:32 am
Decision: In re Michael J. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The present case can therefore be distinguished from those in G 1/09 and J 4/11 but the principles established by those cases can nevertheless be applied to the present case.[5.1] As to the position immediately after the application was withdrawn and before any request for correction under R 139 was filed, the effect of the filing of the withdrawal was that the application was thereupon withdrawn. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:45 pm
Sellers, J. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Under R 56(3), the application date may then remain unaltered and does not have to be re-dated to the date when the correct drawings were subsequently filed.[3] (a) R 56 reads in its relevant parts:“(1) If the examination under Article 90, paragraph 1, reveals that parts of the description, or drawings referred to in the description or in the claims, appear to be missing, the EPO shall invite the applicant to file the missing parts within two months. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 1:07 pm
L’Office fédéral de la justice (OFJ) a publié à la fin de l’année dernière un avant-projet (que j’ai déjà largement... [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]
18 Oct 2014, 2:50 pm
It's not just J. [read post]
30 Dec 2006, 9:27 pm
J'ai appris le piano, transféré ces notions vers le synthétiseur. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
As can be seen from the basic proposition for a revision of the EPC of October 13, 2000 (MR/2/00, Number 6, A 122), the lawmaker wanted to keep the possibility of re-establishment into the time limit for further processing, which had been acknowledged by the case law (J 12/92 [3.2.2]; J 29/94 [3], J 902/87 [2.2-4]). [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
J 19/05 [4]) [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 4:09 am
Naudet espère doubler le nombre de jeux de données disponible sur Data.Gouv.Fr (...) [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The point was repeated in J 9/12 [3]. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 10:47 am
Decision: In re Eric J. [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 9:00 pm
Le brevet parent avait été révoqué par la décision T1586/06. [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 1:00 am
July 20, 2020 Bowes, J., Olson, J., Stabile, J.) [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]
