IPO In an earlier decision ([2002] UKIntelP o39102) the HO held that all the claims were invalid but he gave the patentees an opportunity to submit amendments. The HO decided that the amendments offered did not cure the invalidity of the claims and ordered revocation of the patent.
Judges:
Mr P Hayward
Citations:
[2003] UKIntelP o25603, O/256/03
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Camfil Ab v Interfilta (UK) Ltd (Patent) IPO 5-Oct-2001
IPO During the evidence rounds of a revocation action, the applicant for revocation filed a supplementary statement of case with their evidence-in-reply, which brought in a completely new point. The patentee was . .
Cited – Camfil Ab v Interfilta (UK) Ltd (Patent) IPO 10-Dec-2002
IPO Before a decision on an application under section 72 issued uninvited submissions were received from the defendants arguing that there had been irregularities at the substantive hearing which warranted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.455648
