| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2006] All ER (D) 89 (Jul) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2006] EWHC 1638 (Ch) |
| Court: | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Judge: | Lewison J |
| Representation | Richard Davis (instructed by Withers & Rogers) for the claimant. |
| Douglas Campbell (instructed by Cripps Harries Hall) for the patentee. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 7 July 2006 |
Catchwords
Patent - Specification - Amendment of specification with leave of court - Claimant objecting to amendment - Claimant contending invention obvious or anticipated in light of common general knowledge and cited prior art - Whether amendment should be allowed - , ss 1(1)(b), 3, 75, 76.
The Case
The claimant's objections to the patentee's application to amend its patent for an invention that created a fluidized bed were dismissed on the basis, inter alia, that its arguments in favour of anticipation were defective in that they selected individual features from the prior artand applied them for different purposes to the patent in suit. The court went on to stress that important documents, including skeleton arguments, witness statements, and experts' reports, should be supplied to the trial judge in electronic format.
Practice Areas
Lexis®Library
- 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
