Court : UK Supreme Court
..... partially valid to grant relief in respect of that part which is found to be valid and infringed. 5. section 77(2) of the act refers to "the provisions of the european patent convention relating to the amendment or revocation". this is a reference to article 68 of the convention, and indirectly to article 64. they provide: "article 64 rights ..... whether the same applied to the other fourteen infringements, which has given rise to a certain amount of controversy since: see hormel foods corp v antilles landscape investments nv [2005] rpc 28, unilin beheer bv v berry floor nv [2007] fsr 25 at paras 47-48. the essential fallacy in the majority's reasoning in coflexip lay in ..... consequence which has come about in this case. the facts 8. the patent in suit is a european patent for a "seating system and passenger accommodation unit for a vehicle", granted to virgin and published on 30 may 2007. the seat, which was designed in about 2005, reclines to provide a flat bed. it is commonly used in long- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... just last term, in buckley v. valeo, 424 u. s. 1 , we rejected a contention that the reporting requirements of the federal election campaign act of 1971 violated the first amendment rights of those who contribute to minority parties: "but no appellant in this case has tendered record evidence. . . . instead, appellants primarily rely on ..... 347 . but those cases involve affirmative, unannounced, narrowly focused intrusions into individual privacy during the course of criminal investigations. we have never carried the fourth amendment's interest in privacy as far as the roe appellees would have us. we decline to do so now. likewise the patient appellees derive a right to ..... schedule ii drugs are medically indicated is sufficient to constitute an page 429 u. s. 604 invasion of any right or liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment. [ footnote 32 ] iii the appellee doctors argue separately that the statute impairs their right to practice medicine free of unwarranted state interference. if the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... however, rejected in conference. h.r.conf.rep. no. 92-1605, p. 65 (1972). [ footnote 33 ] although the history of the imd exclusion in various amendments to the act suggests that congress may have assumed that it would refer primarily to public institutions, the state does not argue that it is so confined. we are confident that congress ..... 301 (1980). [ footnote 11 ] 42 u.s.c. 1396, 1396a. [ footnote 12 ] see 1905(a) of the act, 42 u.s.c. 1396d(a) (1982 ed. and supp. iii), as further amended by the medicare and medicaid budget reconciliation amendments of 1984, pub.l. 98-369, 2335(f), 98 stat. 1091. [ footnote 13 ] the definitions of these three categories ..... that underlies the entire program does favor a liberal interpretation of the eligibility provisions of the act, but as is true of the policy favoring the development of less restrictive treatment programs for the mentally ill that is reflected in the "long amendment," see infra, this page and 471 u. s. 534 , we must nevertheless respect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... and human services for approval a plan which, inter alia, establishes a scheme for reimbursing health care providers. in 1980, congress passed the boren amendment to the act, which requires provider reimbursement according to rates that the "state finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the secretary," are "reasonable and adequate" to meet ..... concerned, however, that the secretary wielded too much control over reimbursement rates. see h.r.rep. no. 92231, p. 100 (1971). congress therefore amended the act in 1972 to give states more flexibility to develop methods and standards for reimbursement, but congress retained the ultimate requirement that the rates reimburse the "reasonable cost ..... also 2a c. sands, sutherland statutory construction 45.12 (4th ed. 1984). petitioners acknowledge that a state may not make, or submit assurances based on, a patently false finding, see tr. of oral arg. 7, but insist that congress left it to the secretary, and not the federal courts, to ensure that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... statutory condition for the admission of a patient to a state hospital (under, for example, sections 57a(6) or 59a(6) of the criminal procedure (scotland) act 1995 as amended) is no longer satisfied. if the tribunal is not so satisfied, then it will refuse the application. if on the other hand it is so satisfied, then ..... scottish parliament to pass what became sections 264 to 273 of the mental health (care and treatment) (scotland) act 2003. despite all the recent changes to the mental health act 1983 (which consolidated the 1959 act with later amendments), the law in england and wales still lags behind the law in scotland in this respect. no doubt those ..... are now deemed to be a compulsion order and a restriction order within the meaning of the criminal procedure (scotland) act 1995 as amended. 45. in 2008 the appellant applied for an order under section 264(2) of the act. in 2009 the tribunal issued its decision, refusing the application. 46. in its decision, the tribunal described the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... part thereof, and that the same was expressly excepted and excluded from, and did not pass with, the grant of said premises in and by said patent for said premises." the amended answer further alleged that on the 1st of january, 1883, the defendants, then and now being citizens of the united states, went upon the premises last ..... part and parcel of the unappropriated public mineral domain of the united states, and that the acts and doings of the defendants as hereinbefore set forth constitute the said supposed trespass complained of by the plaintiff." the plaintiff demurred to the amended answer because neither of its allegations set forth any defense, because it showed that neither the ..... and did exist within the premises was known to the patentees of that claim. the phrase "claimed to exist," as used in the amended answer, apparently intending to follow the form of patent therein set forth, is not indeed a statement that a claim for the vein or lode had been in due form made and located, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... of a claim which is too broad in its terms; but certainly it cannot be used to change the character of the invention. and if it requires an amended specification or supplemental description to make an altered claim intelligible or relevant, while it may possibly present a case for a surrender and reissue, it is clearly not ..... class, and, being read together, throw mutual light on each other, and, viewed in that mutual light, we think it clear that there is no authority for amending a patent by means of a disclaimer in the manner in which the appellants have attempted to amend their patent in the present case. the decree of the circuit court is affirmed. ..... s. 588 the counsel for the appellants suggests that there is a difference between 4917 and 4922 of the revised statutes (corresponding, respectively, to 7 and 9 of the act of 1837), and that the disclaimer filed in this case satisfies the conditions of the former of these sections. he says: "evidently there are two sections under which a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... under either the old or the new process are practically indistinguishable. this second claim of the reissue, being a manifest attempt to broaden the original patent, cannot, in view of the amended specification on which it was based or procured, be held to cover a glue-lined barrel as an article of manufacture, which was distinctly disclaimed ..... according to his own testimony, he had not page 149 u. s. 294 applied and had not thought of applying for a patent on his process at the time of disclosing his secret, but shortly thereafter he concluded that he had acted unwisely in imparting it to the defendant, and at once applied for and obtained his original ..... patent for the very purpose of protecting himself against the defendant's use thereof. he did not, therefore, rely upon that alleged promise, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... name of eagleton, but the letter of that date in his name to the office states that what is amended is in the specification in his application. although at some time before the issuing of the patent evidence was produced to the office of the appointment of the administratrix and of her assignment to the eagleton ..... that of merely japanning steel furniture springs; the authority given to his attorneys was only to amend that application, and ended at his death; the amendments made were not mere amplifications of what had been in the application before; the patent was granted upon them without any new oath by the administratrix, and this defense is not ..... july, 1868, a petition for a patent for an "improvement in furniture springs," accompanied by an affidavit, a specification, a drawing, and a model and the proper fee, and in the petition appointed munn & co. "to act as his attorneys in presenting the application, and making all such alterations and amendments as may be required, and to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... -- that is, wood tar, resin, and tallow -- had been applied to leather for similar purposes, as shown in a patent and a rejected application referred to. on june 10, 1873, the specification was amended by inserting the two sentences which are contained in brackets in the specification as hereinbefore set forth, the claim was erased, and ..... ,954, is a superior article; that the use of tallow and tar upon leather was old, but rawhide fulled was not leather, and that the materials named acted with the rawhide very differently from what they did with leather. the same communication erased the second claim introduced june 10, 1873, namely: "second, a belt or ..... down is that where a patentee, on the rejection of his application, inserts in his specification, in consequence, limitations and restrictions for the purpose of obtaining his patent, he cannot, after he has obtained it, claim that it shall be construed as it would have been construed if such limitations and restrictions were not contained .....
Tag this Judgment!