Orbital 2 Limited and Urs Viktor Giger (Patent): IPO 29 Jan 2010

EAT This was a request for strike-out of an entitlement reference, prior to the formal evidence rounds, on the grounds that the statement of case provided by the claimant did not clearly identify the inventive concept in dispute. The patent applications have not yet been granted, and the defendant says the claims were deliberately drafted broadly to draw the search. Without more detail from the claimant regarding what they consider the inventive contribution to be, the defendant said he could not properly defend his position.
Following the House of Lords judgment in Yeda, the Hearing Officer found that it was necessary to wait until evidence has been adduced before determining what the inventive concept is, and who contributed to it. At this stage, prior to the filing of evidence, it was not possible to say that the statement of grounds disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, as would be required by CPR 3.4 to strike out a statement of case.
The Hearing Officer allowed the claimant to make some minor amendments to the statement of grounds to clarify the legal basis of its case. He also ordered that the evidence rounds would be sequential, and directed a timetable for the remainder of the proceedings accordingly.


[2010] UKIntelP o03310




Civil Procedure Rules 3.4


England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457837