||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 336 (Mar)
|| EWHC 471 (Pat)
||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.
||21 March 2002
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 - .
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.
- 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