Regina v Comptroller-General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ex parte Ash and Lacey Building Products Ltd: 2002

Revocation was sought on the ground that the patent was invalid because of anticipation by prior publication. The court considered its powers under section 77 in the context of such a revocation application: ‘ . . the power to revoke arises in circumstances where there is a lis between the patentee and the applicant. The Comptroller (or the court) is not prosecutor and judge, she is judge alone.’

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2002] RPC 46

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 72

Cited by:

CitedRhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245171