Patent decision

BL number

O/438/02

Concerning rights in

GB0030017.8

Hearing Officer

Mr P Hayward

Decision date

25 October 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Xtralite Limited vs Hartington Conway Limited

Provisions discussed

PA 1977 section 8(1)

Keywords

Amendment, Cross-examination, Evidence

Related Decisions

None

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.