Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 157 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2014] EWHC 18 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division, Patents Court
Judge:

Henry Carr QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Representation Mark Vanhegan QC (instructed by Gordons Partnership LLP) for MTL.
  Alan Johnson, solicitor advocate (of Bristows LLP) for AIL.
Judgment Dates: 24 January 2014

Catchwords

Patent - Revocation - Patent infringement - Claimant bringing claim against defendant for patent infringement - Hearing officer holding patent anticipated by existing patents and allowing defendant opportunity to propose amendments to patent - Scope of hearing officer's discretion to allow amendments to patent - Whether hearing officer erring in law or in principle in allowing defendant further opportunity to propose amendments to patent - , , .

The Case

Patent Revocation. The claimant applied, pursuant to of the Patents Act 1977 for revocation of a patent (the patent) in the name of the defendant. The hearing officer held that some of the claims in the patent were anticipated by existing patents, but allowed the defendant a further opportunity to propose amendments to the patent. The Patents Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the facts, the hearing officer had been correct to afford the defendant the opportunity to request amendments within six weeks of the date of the decision under appeal.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.