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!



BAILII [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 >> Tek-Dek Ltd and Flexiteek International A/S (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o12013 (13 March 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o12013.html
Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o12013

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Tek-Dek Ltd and Flexiteek International A/S (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o12013 (13 March 2013)

Patent decision

BL number
O/120/13
Concerning rights in
EP 1 196 672
Hearing Officer
Mr A C Howard
Decision date
13 March 2013
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Tek-Dek Ltd and Flexiteek International A/S
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 71(1); Patents Rules 2007 rules 74 and 82(1)
Keywords
Costs, Infringement
Related Decisions
O/311/12

Summary

This was a preliminary decision on an opposed request to amend a statement in an action for a declaration of non-infringement. The claimant requested the addition of invalidity as a new ground in the light of a construction of claim 1 advanced in the defendant’s counterstatement that differed from the construction adopted by the Opposition Division of the EPO when holding the patent valid. In allowing the amendment to the statement, the Hearing Officer found that it would not be fair or in the interests of justice between the parties for consideration to be given to the construction advanced by the defendant without permitting all the all the arguments to be fully aired. It was not considered that the existence of a no-challenge clause in a licence agreement between the parties warranted refusal of discretion in this case. Consideration of costs was deferred to the end of the substantive proceedings and a request by the defendant for compensation in costs should the amendment be permitted was refused on the grounds that the claimant’s request was reasonable and any additional costs incurred had not been avoidable.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o12013


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o12013.html