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 then given the opportunity to file extra evidence dealing with this new point, which included a witness statement from a new witness. The applicant objected to this extra evidence on the grounds of lateness and requested disclosure in respect of an experiment described in the patentees original evidence. At a preliminary hearing, the parties accepted after various exchanges that most of the evidence in dispute was irrelevant and so the hearing officer made a formal order that the details of the experiment and the new witnesss statement be struck out of the evidence. The patentee was then at liberty to file a replacement statement directed solely at the matter raised in the applicant’s supplementary statement of case.
Judges:
Mr P Hayward
Citations:
O/450/01, [2001] UKIntelP o45001
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Camfil Ab v Interfilta (UK) Ltd (Patent) IPO 20-Aug-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.454399