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 >> M -Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd v Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o04505 (1 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o04505.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o04505, [2005] UKIntelP o4505 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o04505
Summary
At a preliminary hearing in revocation and amendment proceedings, the defendant (Trek) requested that the substantive hearing be postponed in view of deficiencies in the claimant’s (M-Systems) statement of case, namely that:
a) the pleadings were in general in a mess, and
b) PCT application WO 00/42491 had not been properly pleaded against novelty
The hearing officer refused to postpone the substantive hearing acknowledging that
a) although the pleadings were unfocussed, the defendant knew the case that it had to answer; and
b) although the document in question had not been explicitly pleaded against novelty from the outset, the defendant should have been well aware of its importance, and in any case had addressed the issue of its relevance to novelty in the counterstatement
Other issues addressed:
· a request by the claimant for documents obtained by disclosure in related proceedings in Singapore with withdrawn at the hearing
· the defendant’s submission that, through an irregularity in procedure by the Patent Office, it had not been given an opportunity to address the novelty issue regarding WO 00/42491, was held - even if valid - not to have materially prejudiced its case in the circumstances.
