Following a substantive decision concerning entitlement to the patent applications in question, the parties did not agree whether the order giving effect to the decision should be stayed pending appeal of that decision.
The Hearing Officer considered practice under the relevant CPR provision and had regard to the potential scenarios for irreversibility and the potential injustice to one party or the other which could arise. He found that there should be no stay to the part of the order which passed patent application GB1018849 from the Defendant to the Claimant, but that the part of the order which required the Defendant to amend GB1107429 should be stayed until the appeal of the substantive decision, and any subsequent appeal, had been finally determined.
The parties were given one week from the date of the decision to update the agreed draft order to reflect this finding.