Search for: "Jackel v. State"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2020, 1:11 pm
In Luv n’ care, Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 1:11 pm
In Luv n’ care, Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 6:46 am
Bi-State Dev. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:07 am
" (see [227]-[228])Inventive problems, obvious solutions After a trot through the case law on "perception of the problem" (including Actavis v Novartis [2010] FSR 18, Haberman v Jackel International [1999] FSR 683 and the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal), Mr Justice Carr recognized it was possible to have a case where the invention was the identification or perception of the problem (even if the solution was obvious). [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 2:40 am
As stated in the specification, the inventive feature is the space saving, self-elongating hose which axially expands when pressurised. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 10:21 am
The reasoning behind why this is so was explained in characteristically lucid terms by Laddie J in Haberman v Jackel [1999] FSR 683 at 699 to 701.128. [read post]
