Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 248 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2005] EWHC 2532 (CH)
Court: Chancery Division, Patents Court
Judge:

Christopher Floyd QC sitting as a deputy judge of the high court

Representation Simon Thorley QC and Richard Meade (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the claimant.
  Richard Arnold QC and Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 18 November 2005

Catchwords

Patent - Petition for revocation - Insufficiency - Whether claim obvious - Whether burden of proof shifting to patentee where application made to amend claim - Whether claim sufficient.

The Case

In an application for revocation of the defendant's patent concerning veterinary medicine, two of the claims were found to be invalid for insufficiency.

Practice Areas

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