The court interpreted the phrase ‘full particulars of the product or process alleged to infringe’ in the context of the disclosure-avoidance provision in the former Order 104 rule 11 as ‘particulars sufficient to enable all issues of infringement to be resolved. The description must be complete in all relevant areas. A description of the product either in general terms or including tendentious assertions is not acceptable.’
Judges:
Pumfre J
Citations:
[1999] RPC 154
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – W L Gore and Associates Gmbh v Geox Spa PatC 7-Oct-2008
The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276755
