Search for: "In the Matter of Amendments to Rules 1 and 10" Results 221 - 240 of 5,847
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Oct 2007, 7:01 am
On October 10, 2007, the USPTO published a "Clarification of the Transitional Provisions Relating to Continuing Applications and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims (signed 10 October 2007). [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
That itself is a tall order, because lawyers typically do not ask for a brand new rule of law. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 5:08 am by David Lynn
Those entities identified as "Large Traders" must comply with the self-identification requirements of Rule 13h-1(b) by December 1, 2011. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 11:00 am by Allison Takacs
The purpose of subsection (i)(10) is to "avoid the possibility of shareholders having to consider matters which have already been favorably acted upon by management. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 11:00 am by Sophie Fritz
The purpose of subsection (i)(10) is to "avoid the possibility of shareholders having to consider matters which have already been favorably acted upon by management. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 1:02 am by Laurence Lai (Simmons & Simmons LLP)
At the same time, new appeal fee refund provisions are being introduced through an amendment to Rule 103 EPC. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:17 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The Opposition Division decided that:- the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request (patent as granted) was not new (Articles 100(a), 52(1) and 54 EPC);- the claimed subject-matter of auxiliary requests I and II failed to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC;- auxiliary request III was not admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Rule 116 EPC; and- account being taken of the amendments made by the proprietor during the opposition… [read post]
6 Oct 2019, 6:01 pm by David Oscar Markus
That purpose is served, the state insists, whether the vote is unanimous or is instead 11-1 or 10-2 – as demonstrated by the fact that most countries (including England) that use jury trials do not require unanimous verdicts. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 2:32 am
As a matter of principle this is now the only real test”. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 1:00 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The examining division held the subject-matter of claims 1 and 2 of the set of claims filed with letter dated 7 August 2015 "to be within the exception to patentability Article 53(b) EPC and Rule 28(2) EPC" and refused the application.III. [read post]
11 Oct 2006, 4:38 pm
Do these voting rules and procedures only apply to the election of board members or to voting on other matters as well? [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 3:52 am by Broc Romanek
Moreover, the adopting release does not indicate (1) whether the amendments should be applied only to periodic reports covering periods ending on or after the effective date, or (2) whether the amendments should be applied to all periodic reports filed after the effective date. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 7:23 pm by Schachtman
In 2000, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Evidence to clarify, among other things, that Rule 702 had grown past the Supreme Court’s tentative, preliminary statement in Daubert, to include over a decade and half of further judicial experience and scholarly comment. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:42 am by Amanda Shanor
It could also have ripple effects well beyond robocalls, including on the constitutional rules surrounding commercial advertising and the proper remedy for laws found unconstitutional under the First Amendment on what are known as content neutrality grounds. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As a rule, the Boards admit amendments when they are filed in response to objections or evidence that are not part of the impugned decision but have been submitted for the first time in the course of the appeal proceedings. [read post]
A petition was filed by “The Movement for Quality Government in Israel” to the Supreme Court, who ruled against the bill 10-1. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 10:32 am by Roger Parloff
But expressing constitutionally-protected political views, no matter how aberrant they may be . . . . is not engaging in insurrection under the 14th Amendment. [read post]