BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> Camfil AB v Interfilta (UK) Ltd (Patent) [2001] UKIntelP o45001 (5 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o45001.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o45001 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o45001
Summary
During the evidence rounds of a revocation action, the applicant for revocation filed a supplementary statement of case with their evidence-in-reply, which brought in a completely new point. The patentee was then given the opportunity to file extra evidence dealing with this new point, which included a witness statement from a new witness. The applicant objected to this extra evidence on the grounds of lateness and requested disclosure in respect of an experiment described in the patentees original evidence. At a preliminary hearing, the parties accepted after various exchanges that most of the evidence in dispute was irrelevant and so the hearing officer made a formal order that the details of the experiment and the new witnesss statement be struck out of the evidence. The patentee was then at liberty to file a replacement statement directed solely at the matter raised in the applicant's supplementary statement of case.
