PO Patent Office – Ex Parte Decisions – As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Koito Manufacturing Co Ltd, it was found that Akinori Matsumoto and Takayuki Iwaki should also be . .
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Patents Judges: Mrs S Williams Citations: GB 2323411, O/120/02 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 13(1) Intellectual Property Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.177152
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Ayumu Taniguchi, and Juni-ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige and Masao Komai, it was found that Ayumu Taniguchi, and Juni-ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige and Masao Komai should be mentioned as a joint inventors in the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them … Continue reading Ayumu Taniguchi, Juni-Ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige Masao Komai v Toyo Kohan Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 27 Jan 2000
IPO An uncontested application was filed by the patent agents of the proprietor Zytronic Displays Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Stephen Ormston and Philip Rudland should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Andrew Morrison in the published patent application and granted patent … Continue reading Zytronic Displays Limited, Morrison, Ormston and Rudland (Patent): IPO 30 Dec 2014
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Guang-Hui Zhao should be mentioned as the sole inventor in relation to the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as … Continue reading Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited, Jian-Qun Li and Guang-Hui Zhao (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Funky Moves Ltd under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Thomas David Binnie should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Ralf Kinnert in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and … Continue reading Funky Moves Ltd, Kinnert and Binnie (Patent): IPO 5 Jun 2014
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor E.V. Offshore Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Matthew Gibson-Ford should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Jonathan Thursby and Shaun Peck in the published patent application for the invention and directed … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Jonathan Thursby, Shaun Peck and Matthew Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 12 Jun 2014
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by Patrick Gaillard under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Patrick Gaillard should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Adrian Bunce and Andrew Fusellier in the published patent application and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him … Continue reading Dynex Technologies, Inc, Bunce, Fusellier and Gaillard (Patent): IPO 26 Jun 2014
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor E.V. Offshore Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Matthew Gibson-Ford should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Jonathan Thursby and Shaun Peck in the published patent application and granted patent for the … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Thursby, Peck and Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 10 Jun 2014
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Zymogenetics, Inc. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Rolf E. Kuestner should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Cindy A. Sprecher, L. Joseph Kuijper, Maria M. Dasovich, J. Francis Grant, Angela K. Hammond, E. Julia Novak, Jane … Continue reading Zymogenetics, Inc, Cindy A Sprecher, L Joseph Kuijper, Maria M Dasovich, J Francis Grant, Angela K Hammond, E Julia Novak, Jane A Gross, R Stacey Dillon and Rolf E Kuestner (Patent): IPO 19 Jun 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Philippe Bencteux under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Steevy Cordette should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Philippe Bencteux in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint … Continue reading Philippe Bencteux and Steevy Cordette (Patent): IPO 9 Sep 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by the patent agents of the proprietor Arvia Technology Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Syed Hussain should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Edward P L Roberts and Nigel Willis Brown in the published patent application … Continue reading Arvia Technology Limited, Edward P L Roberts, Nigel Willis Brown and Syed N Hussain (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2013
An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Emerson Electric Co under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Shawn M Chawgo should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Todd A Westley, Richard W Ballas, . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Renovo Limited. As a result, it was found that Ann Helena Ledwith should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent for the . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by BPB Limited. As a result, it was found that Agnes Smith and Thierry Chotard should be mentioned as joint inventors in the published patent application and granted . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by ABB Research Ltd under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Sean Keeping, Roger Arnold, Martin Ashford and Steve Eeles should also be . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 by MSP Corporation, the relevant provision now being rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007, it was found that . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Antenova Limited, it was found that Scott William Spencer Tyler should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under Section 13(1) by DNA Electronics Ltd, it was found that Leila Shepherd should be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip be . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Rodney Stock, it was found that Rodney Stock should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the patent granted for the invention and directed . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Michael Jones and Ian Henderson, it was found that they should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Michael Jones and Ian Henderson, it was found that they should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Julious L Willett, it was found that Julious L Willett should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the patent granted and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Autoliv Development AB, it was found that Bertil Mattson should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and . .
The Claimant withdrew his reference under Sections 13 and 37 and the Defendant asked for an award of costs on an ‘exemplary basis’. A decision on this issues was made on the papers and the Hearing Officer awarded the Defendants the sum of . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Pinchas Goldstein, it was found that Pinchas Goldstein should be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted for the invention and and directed that an addendum slip . .
IPO The patent concerned a non-woven fabric used primarily for wound dressing. The parties had discussed such a wound dressing in 1993, and in 1994 a company was formed to carry on the business of development and . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Amit Jain, it was found that Amit Jain should be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted for the invention and directed that . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Ayumu Taniguchi and Juni-ichi Tanabe, it was found that Ayumu Taniguchi and Juni-ichi Tanabe should be mentioned as a joint inventors in the granted patent and directed that an . .
PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions. – As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Cognis Deutschland GmbH and Co KG, it was found that Andrea Urban should be mentioned as a joint . .
An uncontested application was filed by Nike International Ltd. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Bruce J. Kilgore and Michael R. Friton should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Eric P. Avar and James A. Grove in the granted patent for the invention and … Continue reading Nike International Ltd, Avar, Grove, Kilgore and Friton (Patent): IPO 2 Aug 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by NATS (EN ROUTE) PLC originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Sankar K. Paul, Luis D. Borges and Allen F. Horn III, originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by MSP Corporation, originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Beertech UK Limited originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules . .
An uncontested application was filed by Power-Sprays Limited, originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that . .
