The question was what was meant by ‘application’ in section 2(3): the request, or the document. It was crucial, because if it meant the document it would have counted as prior art, and would have been novelty-destroying; but if it meant the request, it would not have done because the request had been withdrawn and so it no longer existed. The hearing officer (BL O/513/01), following an earlier decision of the Patent Office (Zbinden’s Application BL O/260/01), held it meant the document, because of ‘the presumption that when a term is used in different places in a statute it has the same meaning’.
Held: The word referred to the request
Laddie J
[2002] EWHC 535 (Patents), [2002] RPC 39, GB 9711337.7
Bailii
Patents Act 1977 2(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Leslie Adrian Alfred Woolard PO 16-Nov-2001
PO Patent Office – Ex Parte Decisions . .
Cited by:
Cited – Oxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec Ltd PatC 5-Sep-2008
The parties disputed the meaning of an patent and know how licence. The parties disputed whether the agreement referred to IP rights before formal patents had been granted despite the terms of the agreement.
Held: ‘The secret of drafting legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.172214
