Patent

02 June 2017

Issue: 7748 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court

Curt G Joa, Inc. v Fameccanica Data SpA [2017] EWHC 1251 (IPEC), [2017] All ER (D) 164 (May)

The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant’s application to amend the specifications of a patent in the course of proceedings to revoke the patent concerning disposable absorbable garments such as diapers. The application was not allowable, since it would result in the specification disclosing additional matter, within the meaning of s 76(3(a) of the Patents Act 1977, and the amended claims would lack clarity contrary to s 14(5)(b). As a result, the patent stood to be revoked.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS

Read All

Conveyancers celebrate U-turn over mortgage handbook fee

Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook

Are you suited to a career in prosecution?

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors

LSB marks Mazur homework

Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)

NLJ this week: Stuck in the past?

The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness

NLJ this week: No automatic bar on ‘user damages’

A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law

Error message

Patent

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison