PO Preliminary decision
After the normal evidence rounds in an entitlement dispute, the defendants sought to amend their pleadings, to submit additional evidence and to have a further witness available for cross-examination at the substantive hearing. All three requests were allowed:
The new pleading of estoppel or acquiescence did little more than clarify the grounds originally pleaded by the defendant. Its admission did not require additional evidence to be filed by the claimant and would not unduly affect the timetable for the substantive hearing. Whilst the delay in introducing it was unfortunate, it had not disadvantaged the claimant;
Admitting the additional evidence would neither disadvantage the claimant nor affect the timetable for the substantive hearing. The potential relevance of the additional evidence and the undesirability of introducing new evidence at the substantive hearing were decisive;
Following the decision in Alliance and Leicester Plc’s Trade Mark Application [2002] RPC 29 the party seeking cross-examination does not need to show the existence of direct conflict of evidence on a particular point to justify cross examination of a witness. It is sufficient for the witness to say something which is relevant if true but which the other party wishes to probe. In this instance, the witnesss evidence was clearly relevant if true and it would have been wrong to refuse to allow him to be cross-examined. The notice given for the witness to appear clearly exceeded the normally accepted minimum.
Judges:
Mr P Hayward
Citations:
O/438/02, [2002] UKIntelP o43802
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) IPO 21-Feb-2003
When Hartington Conway bought Xtralite Industrial Rooflights Limited (XIRL), the sale agreement included rights to the patent applications in suit which had been applied for by XIRL. These patents related to a glazing system known as the Xlok which . .
See Also – Xtralite (Rooflights) Ltd v Hartington Conway Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed a refusal of the divisional director to substitute itself as applicant for a patent.
Held: The claimant had sold its assets to the respondent. The respondent claimed that an estoppel by representation existed, saying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.455347