Search for: "Light v. Lang"
Results 161 - 180
of 192
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2023, 11:56 pm
In a recent opposition case, the Higher Regional Court Vienna (HRC), had the rare opportunity to shed some light on the scope of protection of the well-known trademark “PUMA” as against a similar mark applied for entirely dissimilar goods. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 7:01 am
Honourable mentions F-V, 3.2.4 – new example of lack of unity in claims with multiple dependencies. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 3:49 am
Given that as a judge, Floyd LJ does not tend to leave any point on the “too difficult” pile, this seems surprising, especially in light of indications from both sides that analysing the market for these three categories of uses was not simple. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 12:03 am
Particularly relevant – we believe – are the decisions of the Court of Milan in 2012 in Samsung v Apple and in 2015 in Ical et al. v Rovi Guides et al. [read post]
23 Nov 2023, 1:42 am
The scrutiny of S. 3(e) in the present case also sheds light on the standards required to be met for its applicability to composition claims. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 2:49 am
With respect to the scope of the patent, the Court relied on Article 69 EPC – i.e. claims must be interpreted in the light of the description and drawings – on its interpretation protocol. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 5:16 am
Lang, Andrew. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
Sepracor), in the light of the elements contained in the application, including the patentee’s assertions, without the latter being obliged to provide in the application the results of tests or trials or any other data (e.g., CA Paris, October 29, 2020, RG n°126/2019, Ethypharm v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am
” The case of Martinez-Hidalgo v. [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 12:47 am
” Further, he compared the widening of the term “inventor” to the widening concept of “manner of manufacture” in light of new technologies. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 4:20 pm
In the light of the fact that it has remained unclear why Sisvel considers it necessary to anticipate the English or Dutch proceedings on the merits of the case, Xiaomi’s interests in a proper determination in a procedure with longer deadlines must be given serious consideration. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 9:39 pm
” United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 8:38 pm
Consider the role of fiduciary duty and monitoring and due diligence obligations of enterprises in light of changing jurisprudence. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Over the last three years we have followed Canada’s ongoing battle to protect and reserve it supply management system for dairy and poultry products in place and negotiated for since the original GATT negotiations concluded in 1947. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
Although the Court of Appeal was clear, in Neurim v Generics [2020] EWCA Civ 793, that deciding to uphold the lower court’s decision not to grant a pharmaceutical patent PI was based on the specific facts of that case, the Patents Court has subsequently refused two further pharmaceutical PIs (Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) and [2022] EWHC 1641(Pat), and Novartis v Teva [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)). [read post]
19 Nov 2020, 7:25 am
ZTE and Conversant v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 5:37 pm
Consider the role of fiduciary duty and monitoring and due diligence obligations of enterprises in light of changing jurisprudence. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 10:43 am
Most noticeable there is the ongoing Costco v. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 12:59 am
As a result, several questions remain open, including: Will the opposition proceeding be oral (as are oppositions before the EPO), as suggested by the “oral debate” and the fact that the opposition will be decided “in the light of all written and oral observations” (Article R. 613-44-5), or will it be written (as it is customary in French civil proceedings, excluding summary proceedings)? [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am
Google LLC v. [read post]
