Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 94 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWHC 2451 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division (Patents Court)
Judge:

Mann J

Representation Peter Prescott QC and Jessie Bowhill (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the claimant.
  Iain Purvis and Benet Brandreth (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 9 October 2006

Catchwords

Evidence - Witness - Perjury - Claimant objecting to defendant's registration of patent - Claimant alleging technology developed by its researchers - Defendant's witness claiming invention of technology - Patent officer finding in favour of defendant - Decision based upon evidence of defendant's witness - Defendant's witness admitting having given perjured evidence - Claimant seeking to rely upon admissions - Whether evidence perjured - Whether defendant having procured perjured evidence - Whether defendant having knowledge of perjured evidence - , ss 12, 37.

The Case

In the instant case, the defendant had registered a plastic manufacturing patent despite the claimant's objections. The defendant's former employee subsequently admitted to having given perjured evidence during those proceedings and the claimant sought to show that that evidence had displaced the estoppel arising from that decision. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence upon which the original decision had been based was perjured, it was held that the defendant had had no knowledge of that fact, and, accordingly the claim was dismissed.

Practice Areas

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