Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 131 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWHC 756 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division (Patents Court)

Kitchin J

Representation Simon Thorley QC and Piers Acland (instructed by Roiter Zucker) for the claimant.
  Henry Carr QC (instructed by Bristows) and Tim Powell of Bristows for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 10 April 2006


Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Obviousness - Application for amendment - Claimant opposing amendment on grounds that it would result in disclosure of additional matter - Whether amendment contrary to legislative provisions - Whether patent invalid - , s 76(3).

The Case

In determining whether matter had been added by a proposed amendment to a patent, the test to be applied by the court was not one of obviousness. The matter would be additional unless it was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed, although that disclosure might be implicit.

Practice Areas

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