Industrial Self Adhesives Ltd v Teknek & Ors [2012] EWPCC 10 (08 March 2012)

Industrial Self Adhesives Ltd v Teknek & Ors [2012] EWPCC 10 (08 March 2012)

It was appropriate for the Patents County Court to deal with the amendments since there was no controversy, no public interest issue, and the amendments were clear, supported, and did not add matter or extend the scope. The amendments were therefore allowed.

Citation
[2012] EWPCC 10
Parties
Claimant: Industrial Self Adhesives Limited; Defendant: Teknek Limited; Defendant: Sheila Hamilton; Defendant: Stephen Mitchell; Defendant: Harrison Goddard Foote; Defendant: HGF Law; Additional Counterclaimant: TH Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Amendment Application Following Settlement of Patent Infringement and Unjustified Threats Proceedings / Post Settlement, Application to Amend Patent
Outcome
Amendments to the patent allowed.
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Jurisdiction After Settlement, Scope of Amendment, Procedural Fairness in Patent Proceedings
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Amendment Jurisdiction After Settlement Scope of Amendment Procedural Fairness in Patent Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Industrial Self Adhesives Limited

Claimant

Teknek Limited

Defendant

Sheila Hamilton

Defendant

Stephen Mitchell

Defendant

Harrison Goddard Foote

Defendant

HGF Law

Defendant

TH Group Limited

Additional Counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Amendment Application Following Settlement of Patent Infringement and Unjustified Threats Proceedings / Post Settlement, Application to Amend Patent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to allow patent amendments after settlement
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are allowable under the Patents Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether the amendments add matter, extend scope, or lack clarity

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate for the Patents County Court to deal with the amendments since there was no controversy, no public interest issue, and the amendments were clear, supported, and did not add matter or extend the scope. The amendments were therefore allowed.

Court Disposition

Amendments to the patent allowed.

Orders

  • All proposed amendments to European Patent (UK) No 1 499 549 are permitted.