Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
t. e. Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) [1] specifies that the "matter" for which patent protection is sought in an application - the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the claims. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. [1]
Patent law. In a patent or patent application, the claims define in technical terms the extent, i.e. the scope, of the protection conferred by a patent, or the protection sought in a patent application. In other words, the purpose of the claims is to define which subject-matter is protected by the patent (or sought to be protected by the patent ...
Overview. Crawford & Company is one of the world's largest independent providers of claims management to the risk management and insurance industry as well as self-insured entities. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia with clients in more than 70 countries. Jim Crawford, formerly an insurance company claims manager, founded Crawford ...
Let’s take a look at the 15 largest EPC Companies in the world! 15. Bilfinger. Revenue - $ 5,176.93 million. Number of employees - 35,905. Germany based civil and industrial construction ...
The EPC contractor coordinates all design, procurement and construction work and ensures that the whole project is completed as required and in time. They may or may not undertake actual site work. EPC companies are often used in large-scale projects, such as power plants, refineries, chemical processing facilities, infrastructure projects, and ...
A different apportionment of costs has been ordered by the Board of Appeal. The patent proprietor has requested, under Rule 88(2) EPC and Rule 100 EPC, about €26,000 to be paid by the opponent. [57] During first instance proceedings, a decision on apportionment of costs forms part of the main decision of the Opposition Division.
Under the former version of Rule 36 EPC, an objection of lack of unity of invention raised in a communication of the Examining Division could trigger a 24-month period for filing a divisional application, if the particular objection was raised for the first time. However, under the amended version of Rule 36 EPC which came into effect in April ...
It goes without saying that this delicate balance between Article 83 and 84 EPC has to be assessed on the merits of each individual case." That a lack of clarity in the claims may, in some cases, result in an insufficient disclosure of the invention has been also pointed out by Board 3.2.05 in decision T 1811/13 of 8 November 2016.