Patent decision

BL number

O/147/05

Concerning rights in

GB 2314392

Hearing Officer

Mr R C Kennell

Decision date

27 May 2005

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Marks & Clerk plc v Oystertec plc

Provisions discussed

PA.1977 sections 72(1), 75, 76(2)

Keywords

Revocation

Related Decisions

[2002] UKIntelP o29802, [2002] UKIntelP o52502

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.