Patent decision

BL number

O/390/02

Concerning rights in

GB2329854

Hearing Officer

Mr P Hayward

Decision date

7 October 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Interfilta (UK) v Camfil AB

Provisions discussed

PA1977 section 72

Keywords

Costs, Cross-examination

Related Decisions

[2001] UKIntelP o45001, [2002] UKIntelP o39102

Summary

Eight weeks after a substantive hearing on an application for revocation but before the decision had issued, the defendants raised concerns about arrangements at the hearing, asking for certain matters to be re-opened and for some evidence to be discounted. A further hearing was arranged to consider whether the Hearing Officer had discretion to take account of these late submissions and, if so, whether that discretion should be exercised in the defendants’ favour.

The defendants’ concerns centred on the evidence given under cross-examination by a video link with the US of a key witness for the claimants which they considered tainted because the witness had been accompanied by his own attorney. Therefore they argued that his evidence should be thrown out in its entirety, or, in the alternative, that they should be given another chance to cross-examine him. They also argued that their representative at the original hearing had not conceded that claims 1 and 3 were invalid or, if he had, they now wished to resile from that concession.

The Hearing Officer held that, whilst he had discretion to take account of the late submissions, the defendants had not established that discretion to do so should be exercised in their favour. On the one hand the length of time that they had taken to object to the arrangements, agreed in advance between the parties, counted heavily against them, as did the potential delay in reaching a final conclusion in the section 72 proceedings that would result from re-opening the issue. On the other side of the scales, having witnessed the disputed cross-examination the Hearing Officer considered that the defendants’ allegations had little prospect of success. In respect of the concession the Hearing Officer found that it was made unambiguously and, in the interests of justice to both parties, the defendants should not be allowed to resile from it.

The Hearing Officer indicated that he would award the claimants full recovery of costs, but he deferred setting the amount pending any comments form the defendants on the schedule of expenses submitted by the Claimants.