The claimant appealed a refusal of the divisional director to substitute itself as applicant for a patent.
Held: The claimant had sold its assets to the respondent. The respondent claimed that an estoppel by representation existed, saying the claimant had made representations in the course of negotiations which it should not now be allowed to go back on. The monopoly rights of a patent holder would be conferred on ‘the proprietor of the patent’ under the Act. That did not mean only the registered proprietor and others who could show a title, including an inventor or assignee, could take action. An estoppel could act along a chain of title. There were no grounds to overturn the director’s decision.
Judges:
Pumfrey J
Citations:
Times 01-Oct-2003, Gazette 01-Oct-2003
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 25-Oct-2002
PO Preliminary decision
After the normal evidence rounds in an entitlement dispute, the defendants sought to amend their pleadings, to submit additional evidence and to have a further witness available for . .
See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 21-Feb-2003
When Hartington Conway bought Xtralite Industrial Rooflights Limited (XIRL), the sale agreement included rights to the patent applications in suit which had been applied for by XIRL. These patents related to a glazing system known as the Xlok which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Estoppel
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.186525