||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 157 (Jan)
|| EWHC 18 (Pat)
||Chancery Division, Patents Court
Henry Carr QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
||Mark Vanhegan QC (instructed by Gordons Partnership LLP) for MTL.
||Alan Johnson, solicitor advocate (of Bristows LLP) for AIL.
||24 January 2014
Patent - Revocation - Patent infringement - Claimant bringing claim against defendant for patent infringement - Hearing officer holding patent anticipated by existing patents and allowing defendant opportunity to propose amendments to patent - Scope of hearing officer's discretion to allow amendments to patent - Whether hearing officer erring in law or in principle in allowing defendant further opportunity to propose amendments to patent - , , .
Patent Revocation. The claimant applied, pursuant to of the Patents Act 1977 for revocation of a patent (the patent) in the name of the defendant. The hearing officer held that some of the claims in the patent were anticipated by existing patents, but allowed the defendant a further opportunity to propose amendments to the patent. The Patents Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the facts, the hearing officer had been correct to afford the defendant the opportunity to request amendments within six weeks of the date of the decision under appeal.
- 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
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- 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