The claimants sought letters of request to obtain evidence to support applications they wished to make, including onme before the European Patents Office.
Held: The EPO when involved in opposition proceedings was not a domestic court, and letters were not available. The limited power under the regulation should be matched by limitations similar to those which would be imposed under English common law such as the duty not to use evidence obtained under letters of request without the permission of the court or of the witness.
Judges:
The Hon Mr Justice Laddie
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 589 (Pat), Times 24-May-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
Citing:
See Also – Dendron GmbH v The Regents of the University of California 2004
Pumfrey J said: ‘I would reject the suggestion that the right that is conferred by the grant of a licence is anything wider than a consent on behalf of the patentee to the doing of an act which absent that consent would be unlawful.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Thomas (2) QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained a privacy injunction, but the name of the claimant had nevertheless been widey distributed on the Internet. The defendant newspaper now sought to vary the terms. The second defendant did not oppose the injunction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Intellectual Property, Contract
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194838
