Search for: "J. DOES 1-5" Results 21 - 40 of 6,477
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2015, 7:14 am by Docket Navigator
§ 355(j)(5)(B)(iii) that a party has failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the litigation. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Special edition No. 5 OJ EPO 2007, 200, under “R 134” refers the reader to “Explanatory remarks 2002: CA/PL 5/02 Rev. 1 Add. 1”. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
”[5] This mode of payment is not provided for in Article 5(1) RFees 2008.[6] Under Article 5(2) RFees 2008 the President of the EPO may allow other methods of paying fees than those set out in paragraph 1. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 6:40 am by Jessica Kroeze
Accordingly, the finding of the Receiving Section that the application does not enjoy a right of priority was found justified.Summary of Facts and SubmissionsI. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:45 am by Roel van Woudenberg
J 27/90, OJ EPO 1993, 422, 426), but at the latest within one year following the expiry of the unobserved time limit.2.2 On 5 November 2012 the Office sent a communication (EPO Form 2522) to the appellant's European representative informing him of the non-payment of the renewal fee for the fourth year under Rule 51(1) EPC and the possibility to validly pay the renewal fee together with the additional fee within the six-month period following the due date. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 1:42 am by Sander van Rijnswou
 The applicant does not agree, and wants the receiving section to decide that the figures were present. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 1:42 am by Sander van Rijnswou
 The applicant does not agree, and wants the receiving section to decide that the figures were present. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 8:33 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The post What is the FMCSA and how does it affect truck drivers? [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
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]
31 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
J 20/85 [4(a)] and J 3/90). [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This would not be in line with the wording of A 122(1) which stipulates that all due care required by the circumstances has to be shown. [read post]
QUESTION: I have been in the US on a J-1 through the Teacher Exchange Program for almost three years, and my J-1 will be expiring on in June. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
There does not seem to be any reason why they should be presumed, Art 5(1)(a) does not require a trade mark with a reputation. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
These decisions deal with withdrawals from a withdrawal of an application.J 1/11In J 1/11, the application under consideration was filed as an international application and then entered the European phase. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 3:22 am by Nico Cordes
, within the 1 month of entering the regional phase before the EPO .A question arising in the present case is whether reestablishment is available for the request for restoration of priority. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 3:22 am by Nico Cordes
, within the 1 month of entering the regional phase before the EPO .A question arising in the present case is whether reestablishment is available for the request for restoration of priority. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Also, in its version in force as of September 1, 1987, R 51 EPC 19 [read post]