Search for: "MATTER OF J R T"
Results 1 - 20
of 4,165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
In all other cases, matters of reimbursement shall be decided by the Board of appeal.[2] R 103(2) codifies the case law of the Legal Board of appeal (J 32/95) in respect of R 67 EPC 1973 (see explanations to the Implementing Regulations, Special edition n°1, OJ EPO 1999, 713). [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 8:28 am
Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University, The Netherlands); J. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, this provision has undergone some change when the EPC 2000 entered into force. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The point was repeated in J 9/12 [3]. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
J 11/87 [3.3, 3.6]; J 27/94 [8)) and is not allowed to reverse these acts so that they can be considered as never filed (J 10/87 [12]; J 4/97 [2]).On the other hand, the Boards of Appeal considered that R 88 acknowledges as a further legal value the desirability of having regard to true as opposed to ostensible party intentions in legal proceedings (T 824/00 [6]) in appropriate circumstances. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
”[2] The subject matter of decision G 1/09 was a divisional application filed after a decision refusing the parent application had been rendered, but before the appeal period had expired. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1981/12 [catchword, point 1] the Board considered, in somewhat similar circumstances, that the correct basis for the refusal of the application was that the applicant was not entitled to pursue an application based on subject matter not searched by the EPO. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
By using a service external to his office for receiving and dispatching postal mail as explained above, the representative accepted that this external service would be treated as if it were his own in matters relating to the delivery of communications subject to deadlines.[5] In the Board’s opinion the situation of the present case is different to the one dealt with in decisions J 9/05 and J 18/05. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:01 pm
,R-1 such that g.c.d {qj,p-1} = 1 and qj > 6, qj > q(j-1) for each j = 1, 2, ... [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 6:49 am
[I]t's not that the J-shaped spine is the ideal one — or the healthiest. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
” (emphasis added by the board).[2.2.4] It follows from this that the appeal proceedings are confined to the subject-matter of the first instance proceedings and therefore that the statement of grounds of appeal should at least discuss this subject-matter. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 7:00 am
Don't miss this issue. [read post]
20 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 1242/04 [8.3] the Board has explained that R 45 relates only to the practicability of a search and not to the potential relevance of its results in subsequent substantive examination. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
J 10/01 [15-20], J 24/03 [4], J 18/04 [2.1], J 7/05 [3] and G 1/09 [3.2.4]. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 7:49 pm
Cromwell J. and Fish J. put on a solid display of written advocacy in today’s Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
A statement was also provided by Ms J. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 3:49 am
R. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 7:26 am
However, the court denied summary judgment as to Tayar, who was actually treated at R&J and whose postings principally said that service was slow and that the R&J employees were rude, which were largely matters of opinion. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 8:37 am
While R&J alleged misleading consumer-oriented misconduct, it didn’t allege facts showing the public health or safety were threatened. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
G 3/92 [1]).[3.1.10] As the Board has decided in its decision J 33/03 [2.1], contrary to the decision to stay the proceedings according to Rule 14(1), it is in the discretion of the Office to decide whether the proceedings are to be continued under R 14(3). [read post]
