||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 131 (Apr)
|| EWHC 756 (Pat)
||Chancery Division (Patents Court)
||Simon Thorley QC and Piers Acland (instructed by Roiter Zucker) for the claimant.
||Henry Carr QC (instructed by Bristows) and Tim Powell of Bristows for the defendant.
||10 April 2006
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Obviousness - Application for amendment - Claimant opposing amendment on grounds that it would result in disclosure of additional matter - Whether amendment contrary to legislative provisions - Whether patent invalid - , s 76(3).
In determining whether matter had been added by a proposed amendment to a patent, the test to be applied by the court was not one of obviousness. The matter would be additional unless it was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, although that disclosure might be implicit.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary