The patentee sought to amend its specification.
Held: The court expressed its concern that the appeal had first been listed as an oral hearing, though quite propelry it had now been dealt with on the papers. The court had to be shown some error by the Comptroller. Evidence had been excluded, but the evidence had been filed late, with no reason being given, and would have amounted to an attack not on the amendment but on the validity of the patent. Appeal dismissed
Judges:
Mr Justice Jacob
Citations:
Unreported, 16 November 2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Thibierge and Comar Sa v Rexam CFP Limited ChD 9-Nov-2001
An appeal from the Patents Office relating to an exercise of discretion required that it should be shown that there was error of principle. It has to be shown that the decision maker below exercised his discretion under a mistake of law, or in . .
Cited – Great Lakes Carbon’s Patent 1971
Pure amendment (of a patent) proceedings should be short – they are not the place for a roving inquiry into validity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166812