||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 16 (May)
|| EWHC 932 (Pat)
Roger Wyand QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court
||Phillip Johnson (instructed by Elkington and Fife LLP) for the claimant.
||Charlotte May (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
||17 April 2012
Patent - Application - Refusal - Claimant using third party company to pay fee for application for supplementary protection certificate (SPC) - Company using wrong system to pay fee for application - System automatically generating report that patent refused - SPC lapsing on date of patent - Claimant seeking correction of irregularity and grant of SPC - Hearing Officer dismissing application - Claimant appealing - Whether Hearing Officer erring - Council Regulation (EEC) 1768/92, arts 8(2), 12, 18 - , , (1) - Patents Rules 2007, , s 107.
Patent Application. Having considered the relevant provisions of the and Council Regulation (EEC) 1798-92 (concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)the Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against a ruling of the defendant Comptroller of Patents on the basis that the Hearing Officer had been correct to find that, owing to the misfiling of a patent application, the claimant's patent application had lapsed.
- 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
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- 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