Search for: "MATTER OF A T J T"
Results 161 - 180
of 10,227
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Sep 2016, 9:35 am
” The Facts of the Case The case of J. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 12:24 am
If you don't want the added cost of litigating a matter in a Korean court, please register your trademark in Korea. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The point was repeated in J 9/12 [3]. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 4:36 pm
In this episode, attorney Jacob J. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 8:47 pm
Panelists for the program will include: Raymond T. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 2:44 pm
T. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 7:17 am
The taking into account of this argument necessarily leads to the consideration of the applicant's argumentation concerning the inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The fact that the recipient (here: the PR) takes notice of the mail only several days or even weeks after [the receipt] is not relevant because the only legal condition, i.e. the delivery to him, is fulfilled (T 247/98 [1]; T 172/04 [4]; T 743/05 [1.6-8]; T 261/07 [1.6]; T 529/09 [4]).Decision T 703/92, which has been invoked by the [opponent] is not to be understood differently. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 11:24 am
”).And it didn't matter that Del Zotto never actually sold any of its Gold Blocks. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 12:21 pm
About André J. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 6:52 am
This post is by Joel "J-dog" Rosenberg, cross-posted from his live journal. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 4:53 am
I didn’t have to wait long : Holman J has done it in London Borough of Brent v C [2016] EWHC 1335 (Fam) (28 April 2016). [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:45 am
Whereas all these applications were successfully entered into the appellant's docketing system IPENDO, the European application in question was "inadvertently, inexplicably and unintentionally" not uploaded into this system.Concerning IPENDO it was submitted that this system, which served both as a docketing reminder system and an annuity payment service, contained a comprehensive storehouse of information regarding the appellant's pending intellectual property matters,… [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the fact that the Board has come to a different conclusion from the department of first instance does not by itself mean that the latter committed a substantial procedural violation (see for example decisions T 87/88; T 538/89, T 182/92) but is rather a matter of judgment, which does not amount to a procedural violation (see for example decision T 182/92 [7] and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 7th edition 2013,… [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 7:11 am
Hereby, the multiplicity of interlocked features rendered the changes in subject-matter of the auxiliary requests very complex.As a result, auxiliary requests 1 and 2 were not admitted in the proceedings and the patent was revoked.Sachverhalt und AnträgeI. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:30 pm
"So here's where the oral argument might matter. [read post]
15 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The appellant had implicitly acknowledged this contradiction by limiting the claims to signed data […]. iii) The advantages linked to the new features (b) and (c) were not related in any obvious way to avoiding an unauthorised manipulation, which was the only problem mentioned in the description, and the Guidelines for examination (C-IV 9.8.2) did not allow a corresponding reformulation of the problem […].[3] R 86(4) EPC 1973 lays down that amended claims may not relate to (1)… [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
According to those features, the full strand and the empty strand are arranged in a common horizontal plane and are arranged behind one another in the longitudinal direction of the storage device.Moreover, the storage device according to claim 1 differs from the one of D2 by a second group of distinguishing features (hereinafter: “second group of features”), according to which – according to feature [i] - to each layer of the full strand is allocated a corresponding layer of the… [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 4:59 am
In doing so, Floyd J summarised the main principles involved when considering whether an attempt to amend a patent would fall foul of the "no added matter" rule. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
Here the following applies: procedural acts that were legally effective for the proceedings (verfahrensgestaltend schon rechtswirksam) and completed (e.g. the time limit for filing an opposition (TFO)) before the entry into force of the EPC 2000 on December 13, 2007, are to be decided on the basis of the old law (J 10/07 [1]; T 1172/04 [1], tempus regit actum). [read post]
