Search for: "No. 04-1172"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2012, 10:45 am
Oral Argument in case# 11-1172; Albert West v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm
It relies on the findings of G 1/04 [6.3] and confirms that “whether or not a method is excluded from patentability under A 53(c) cannot depend on the person carrying it out. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 7:46 pm
Patry, Copyright Law & Practice at 1172. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 7:46 pm
Patry, Copyright Law & Practice at 1172. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 3:27 am
Braff, 621 F Supp 1170, 1172 [SDNY 1985].) [read post]
9 May 2011, 10:11 am
Quixote Corp., 166 F.3d 1172 (Fed. [read post]
7 May 2012, 4:18 am
(Calver, R (on the application of) v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin) (03 May 2012). [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
[…] For cases where the cause of non-compliance with a time limit involves some error in the carrying out of the party’s intention to comply with the time limit, the case law has established the criterion that due care is considered to have been taken if non-compliance with the time limit results either from exceptional circumstances or from an isolated mistake within a normally satisfactory monitoring system […]6.2.2 Isolated mistake within a satisfactory MoTiL system (a)… [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 10:51 am
Textron, Inc. 48 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (Fed. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Supp. 2d 1166, 1172 (N.D. [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]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Baxter Healthcare, 947 F.Supp. 1387, 1392, 1397, 1403-04 (D. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Supp. 2d 1166, 1172 (N.D. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Choinski, No. 04-5079 Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims… [read post]
6 Feb 2010, 1:59 am
All the familiar items are found on this week's Enforcement Report from the U.S. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
6 Feb 2010, 1:59 am
All the familiar items are found on this week's Enforcement Report from the U.S. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Freed, 37 F.4th 1199, 1203-04 (2022). [read post]
