Clear Focus Imaging Inc v Contra Vision Limited: ChD 16 Nov 2001

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


Mr Justice Jacob


Unreported, 16 November 2000


England and Wales


CitedThibierge 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 . .
CitedGreat 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