Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> Cartonneries de Thulin S.A. v (1) Wilson Gunn Gee (2) Hot Form Production S.N.C. di Adriano Mariotto C. (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o26304 (26 August 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o26304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o26304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Cartonneries de Thulin S.A. v (1) Wilson Gunn Gee (2) Hot Form Production S.N.C. di Adriano Mariotto C. [2004] UKIntelP o26304 (26 August 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o26304
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/263/04
- Concerning rights in
- EP 0430956 B2
- Hearing Officer
- Mr P Hayward
- Decision date
- 26 August 2004
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Cartonneries de Thulin S.A. v (1) Wilson Gunn Gee (2) Hot Form Production S.N.C. di Adriano Mariotto & C.
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 section 27
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Amendment, Disclosure
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The patent relates to a CD case suitable for holding two discs, of the type which comprises three parts hinged together to open up like a 'triptych'. The two CDs are held on respective faces of one of the outer parts, the opposite part comprising the cover and the central part the base of the case when closed.
In the course of earlier proceedings for infringement and invalidity, the patent had been held invalid by the Court of Appeal because of added matter previously introduced during opposition proceedings in the EPO. The purpose of the amendments now offered was to rectify this defect, and concerned the specification in claim 1 of a numerical value for the maximum angular displacement of the disc-carrying part relative to the base part. The patentee contended that this value was implicitly disclosed in the original specification.
It was held that there was no implicit disclosure of the matter sought to be added. The patentees expert evidence, although unchallenged, did not address directly the question at issue and was therefore of only limited assistance to his case. Notice was taken of judicial statements made in the earlier litigation on the construction of the specification, but none of these was considered to give clear support to the contention that the matter in question had been implicitly disclosed.