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 >> (i) Polytan Planungs -und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen mbH Co. (ii)Edel Grass B.V. and Fieldturf Holdings Inc. (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o41210 (30 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o41210.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o41210
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
(i) Polytan Planungs-und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen mbH Co. (ii)Edel Grass B.V. and Fieldturf Holdings Inc. [2010] UKIntelP o41210 (30 November 2010)
For the whole decision click here: o41210
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/412/10
- Concerning rights in
- GB 2329910 and GB 2350843
- Hearing Officer
- Mr A Bartlett
- Decision date
- 30 November 2010
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- (i) Polytan Planungs-und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen mbH & Co. (ii)Edel Grass B.V. and Fieldturf Holdings Inc.
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 Section 72
- Keywords
- Revocation
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
This is the consolidation of two individual actions for the revocation of two GB patents held by Fieldturf, GB 2329910 and its divisional GB 2350843. Fieldturf applied to amend these two patents under s75 during the course of these actions. As a result of the applicants for revocation stating that they no longer wish to pursue their applications for revocation under section 72, it was considered whether to pursue revocation in the public interest. The Hearing Officer found that revocation should not be pursued as there was no clear lack of novelty or inventive step in the claims as proposed to be amended. Despite some earlier reservations as to their clarity being expressed on behalf of the Comptroller, the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the proposed amendments to the claims were allowable in respect of issues other than novelty and inventive step. Therefore the Hearing Officer allowed the patents to be amended in the form sought by the proprietor and made no orders for revocation of the patents.