||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 94 (Oct)
|| EWHC 2451 (Ch)
||Chancery Division (Patents Court)
||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.
||9 October 2006
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.
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.
- 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