Posts tagged with: "Enlarged-Board-of-Appeal"
Results 981 - 1000
of 1,196
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2011, 3:11 pm
The system became marked by an elevated number of hearings, trials and appeals. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 11:45 am
Related posts:EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal: Method Patentable By Disclaiming Unpatentable Step The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal handed down its decision... [read post]
14 May 2011, 11:01 am
” The “Headnote” of the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 1/93 relates to a specific fact situation which is not analogous with that of the present case. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
Auxiliary request (exception to the prohibition of reformatio in peius)[3.1] In its decision G 1/99 the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that in principle, an amended claim, which would put the opponent and sole [opponent] in a worse situation than if it had not appealed, must be rejected. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
The decision deals with an appeal against the refusal of an application by the Examining Division (ED). [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
In this regard the Board points out that this wording of R 36(1) EPC is identical to the wording of the former R 25(1) EPC 1973 and, therefore, the corresponding case law can be taken into account.[6] The present Board agrees with the statement of the Legal Board of Appeal in decision J 18/04 that the term “pending earlier European patent application” in R 25 EPC 1973 did not establish a time limit having a point in time at which the pending status of… [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:01 pm
This appeal was filed against the refusal of the application under consideration by the Examining Division (ED). [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 5:10 am
The courts, assisted by those technical judges, have, so far, sought to apply the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 5:08 am
Circuit Court of Appeals. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 3:25 am
Ultimately, the Avid appeal affirmed art rejections of the MPF claims. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 9:32 pm
The case at hand arose from the use of a generic drug prescribed to treat protastic hyperplasia in those who have an enlarged prostate. [read post]
19 May 2025, 1:29 pm
Awaiting EboA’s verdict Last year, two new cases were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: G1/24 and G2/24. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 9:39 pm
Keynote speaker is Ursula Kinkeldey (former chair of the relevant EPO Technical Board (3.3.04) and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal), supported by Nina White (Boult Wade Tennant) and Robert Burrows (Bristows). [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
Among other things, the opponent claimed that the priority claim was not valid.In what follows, the Board deals with this question.*** Translation of the French original ***[2] In what follows, the Board refers to the French translation (filed by the [patent proprietor] on June 10, 1998) and the English translation (filed by the [opponent] on September 9, 2005).[2.1] It is not necessary to recall that in its opinion G 2/98, the Enlarged Board of appeal… [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
How did the Legal Board decide this matter? [read post]
29 May 2012, 5:01 pm
In case the Board was unwilling to allow its requests, it requested the Board to refer the following questions to the Enlarged Board (EBA):1. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Plaintiffs sued the State Water Resources Control Board (the “Board”), alleging that the board violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by granting a small domestic use registration to real parties-in-interest without first conducting an environmental review. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 9:49 am
He then suggests that "the UCMJ could usefully be amended by providing for the appeals as of right to the Court of Appeals [for the Armed Forces] across-the-board. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 3:00 am
The President of the EPO informed the Administrative Council about decision R 19/12 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBOA) of 25.4.2014. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 11:01 am
[Opponent’s] argument, that claim 1 refers to an essentially biological process for the protection of plants which is excluded from patentability according to A 53(b), must therefore fail.[6] For the following consideration of the requirements of A 53(b), the board has to draw the parties’ attention to the exact wording of this Article, which reads:“European patents shall not be granted in respect of:(b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the… [read post]
