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 >> I.D.A. Limited and others v University of Southampton (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o06702 (12 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o06702.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o6702, [2002] UKIntelP o06702 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06702
Summary
Preliminary decision
Information about corresponding foreign filings. The defendants should provide details of the application number, country and status of these to enable the claimants to protect their interests. The defendants’ argument that the overall position as to applications filed or not filed was confidential information was not accepted. However, the claimants’ evidence (already due) should not be delayed to allow them to file evidence of foreign law and procedure; an opportunity for this would if necessary be given after entitlement and inventorship had been determined.
Provision of further information. The counter-statement was sufficiently clear and complete that further information about the materials used in the invention, the concept of the invention and its alleged disclosure to "other parties" was not necessary at this stage. Marriott v Chamberlain [1886] LR 17 QBD and Link House Magazines Ltd v Midsummer Books Ltd (Chancery Division 20/05/99, referring to Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 1380), requiring disclosure of the identities of witnesses before trial, were distinguished.
Disclosure of documents. An order for disclosure of various categories of documents was not appropriate at this stage, without prejudice to whether an order might be appropriate at a later stage (Norris’ Patent [1988] RPC 157 distinguished). However, the defendants were ordered to supply a copy which they had found of an earlier draft of the patent application than the one identified in the counter-statement, and to identify to the claimants a number of draft agreements between the parties referred to in the counter-statement but not supplied.
Costs. An agreement for the plaintiff to provide security for costs was accepted. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in respect of the preliminary hearing.
