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!



BAILII [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 >> Automotive Products UK Limited v LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o10904 (20 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o10904.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o10904

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Automotive Products UK Limited v LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG [2004] UKIntelP o10904 (20 April 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o10904

Patent decision

BL number
O/109/04
Concerning rights in
GB2261923
Hearing Officer
Mr G M Rogers
Decision date
20 April 2004
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Automotive Products UK Limited v LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG
Provisions discussed
Sections 27, 72(1) and 75
Keywords
Amendment, Oppositions
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The patentees (defendants) requested amendment of their patent under Section 27 and whilst this was being processed in the Office the claimants filed applied for revocation of the patent. At a preliminary hearing the Section 27 action was stayed. The patentees then filed a request to amend the patent under Section 75. This was opposed by the claimants, so the patentees filed a request for further amendments under Section 75 to replace the first amendments. This request was initially opposed by the claimants but having reached a settlement with the patentees they subsequently withdrew their opposition and also their application for revocation. The hearing officer found that the further amendments were allowable and following long-standing practice, went on to consider whether the notice of withdrawal should be accepted or whether there were questions needing further consideration in the public interest. Finding none, the withdrawal was accepted, and he directed that the further amendments be incorporated in the patent.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o10904.html