‘the duty placed upon the patentee to make full disclosure of all relevant documents (which is required in amendment proceedings) is one which should not be fettered by any action of the courts. Reluctance of this court to go into camera to hear evidence in relation to documents which are privileged which could be used in other jurisdictions, would tend to make patentees reluctant to disclose the full position. That of course would not be in the interest of the public.’
Citations:
[1991] RPC 231
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Bonzel (T) v Intervention Ltd (No3) 1991
. .
Cited by:
Cited – HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 13-Jan-2006
The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.237699