Category: Intellectual Property

British Polythene Ltd (Patent): IPO 14 Aug 2009

IPO The request for an opinion was refused under section 74A(3)(b) as the hearing officer did not think it appropriate to issue an opinion on a request that merely covered a question that had already been sufficiently considered pre-grant.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o24209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457433

Colin R Hart, Paul J Joynt, Stork Townsend Inc Brent M Veldkamp, Jarrod A Grim and Robert T Seaberg (Patent): IPO 18 Aug 2009

IPO Colin R Hart and Paul J Joynt both filed uncontested applications under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 to the effect that they should also have been named as joint inventors in the granted patent. The applications were consolidated. The comptroller found that Colin R Hart and Paul J Joynt should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Brent M Veldkamp, Jarrod A Grim and Robert T Seaberg in the granted EP (UK) patent and directed, in accordance with rule 10(1), that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o24309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457435

John Terence Crilly, New Age Radiators Limited and Ray Fisher Construction Limited (Patent): IPO 11 Aug 2009

IPO The claimant, John Terence Crilly, filed proceedings under section 8 seeking an order, amongst other things, that patent application number GB 0812748.2 in the name of new Age Radiators Limited and patent application number GB 0816067.3 in the name of Ray Fisher Construction Limited, proceed in his name in preference to the current patent applicants. In the absence of a counter-statement from the patent applicants and those considered likely to have an interest in the matter, the hearing officer considered the proceedings unopposed in accordance with rule 77(9). As such, the hearing officer accepted the facts of the case as set out in the claimant’s statement of grounds and found that John Terence Crilly was entitled to be named as the sole patent applicant in respect of the patent applications. He therefore ordered that the applications should proceed in the name of John Terence Crilly as sole patent applicant.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o23909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457436

Dr Steven Sevak Singh Timeguard Ltd (Patent): IPO 4 Sep 2009

IPO The review found that no reason had been shown to set aside opinion 09/08 concerning patent GB2385449 under rule 100. The hearing officer found no error of principle in the examiner’s opinion, nor a conclusion that was clearly wrong.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o25909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457448

Power Stow A/S and Rasn A/S (Patent): IPO 7 Jul 2009

IPO The defendant in an action for a declaration of non infringement requested that the action be struck out for want of prosecution as the claimant had not provided any credible reason why it had not filed its evidence within the agreed timetable nor had it explained how it intended to take the case forward. The hearing officer accepted the defendant’s arguments and struck out the case.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o18909

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457424

Websense UK Limited (Patent): IPO 1 May 2009

The application relates to a system for controlling or monitoring internet access by categorizing URLs and the structure of a cache memory to achieve this.
The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being some combination of a mathematical method and a program for a computer as such.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o11409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457363