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 £5, 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 >> Marks Clerk plc v Oystertec plc (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o14705 (27 May 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o14705.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o14705 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14705
Summary
The application was decided on the papers in the absence of anyone apparently interested in defending it, the defendant and still-named proprietor after some delay (reflected in the costs awarded) having said it was not a proper person to do so following court proceedings concerning entitlement. The hearing officer assumed that the defendant no longer wished to pursue amendments it had previously offered under section 75 and refused to accept them since they would not have been allowable in any case. The hearing officer found that the patent was invalid (i) under section 72(1)(d) by including matter extending beyond that in the application as filed because the claims had been redrafted to cover a construction in one of the Figures not initially suggested to be part of the invention; and (ii) under section 72(1)(a) because claim 1 lacked inventive step in the light of each of two cited specifications plus common general knowledge in the art. However he did not accept that the patent was invalid under section 72(1)(c) for insufficiency by reason of ambiguity. The hearing officer refused to allow a further opportunity to amend, and ordered revocation.
