Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 336 (Mar)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 471 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Neuberger J

Representation David Kitchin QC, Richard Meade and Lindsay Lane (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the claimants.
  Antony Watson QC, Andrew Waugh QC, Tom Hinchliffe and Colin Birss (instructed by Taylor Joynson Garrett) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 21 March 2002

Catchwords

Patent - Amendment - Deleting amendment - Patentee applying to amend patent by deleting certain claims - Claimants contending three errors in patent demonstrating want of skill and knowledge on part of patentee and its advisers - Claimants contending lack of good faith on part of patentee and its advisers in relation to two of those errors - Whether errors involving want of good faith - Whether court should allow amendment - .

The Case

Where an amendment was solely a deleting amendment, it should, save (possibly) in an exceptional case be granted. Moreover, the specification for the patent in the instant case was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. Accordingly the court would grant Amgen permission to delete claims 19 to 25 (inclusive) from the patent and would declare that of the Patents Act 1977 did not deprive Amgen from seeking damages, costs or expenses in relation to the patent.

Practice Areas

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