BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Xtralite Limited vs Hartington Conway Limited (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o43802 (25 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o43802.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o43802 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o43802
Summary
Preliminary decision
After the normal evidence rounds in an entitlement dispute, the defendants sought to amend their pleadings, to submit additional evidence and to have a further witness available for cross-examination at the substantive hearing. All three requests were allowed:
The new pleading of estoppel or acquiescence did little more than clarify the grounds originally pleaded by the defendant. Its admission did not require additional evidence to be filed by the claimant and would not unduly affect the timetable for the substantive hearing. Whilst the delay in introducing it was unfortunate, it had not disadvantaged the claimant;
Admitting the additional evidence would neither disadvantage the claimant nor affect the timetable for the substantive hearing. The potential relevance of the additional evidence and the undesirability of introducing new evidence at the substantive hearing were decisive;
Following the decision in Alliance and Leicester Plcs Trade Mark Application [2002] RPC 29 the party seeking cross-examination does not need to show the existence of direct conflict of evidence on a particular point to justify cross examination of a witness. It is sufficient for the witness to say something which is relevant if true but which the other party wishes to probe. In this instance, the witnesss evidence was clearly relevant if true and it would have been wrong to refuse to allow him to be cross-examined. The notice given for the witness to appear clearly exceeded the normally accepted minimum.
