A court no longer has the discretion as to whether to amend a patent upon application, but must, following European practice, do so when a proper application is made. This is the case despite the clear wording of the English Act. A judge at first instance should be careful to follow a line of cases also at first instance so as to avoid uncertainty: ‘I do not pretend that I would have regarded the point as at all easy, if it had been virgin territory. It would be wrong to leave this case with the impression that I regard the decisions of the three judges as clearly right or, indeed, as wrong. What I do think is that the arguments that I have been presented with do not justify me in departing from those decisions. I consider that the arguments that have been addressed to me are arguments which should be addressed to the Court of Appeal. For my part, I await their decision with interest. For me, I think the right course must be to follow Laddie J, Pumfrey J and Jacob J. Whether one characterises that course as craven or prudent no doubt depends on whether one is [the defendant] or the [claimant].’
Citations:
Times 28-Oct-1999, [1998] EWHC Patents 284
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .
Cited by:
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd and others ChD 15-Jan-2004
The company granted a debenture to the claimant purporting to secure its book debts. The company went into liquidation. The liquidator challenged the bank’s charge.
Held: Siebe was wrongly decided. The charge was ineffective over the book . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.163082