Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Patent amendment

  • 26 Jan 2017

    RE ALMIRALL, S.A.

    Citation
    RE ALMIRALL, S.A.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2093/2016

    Application allowed: amendments permitted because there were no pending proceedings challenging validity, the amendments were advertised with no opposition, they do not extend subject-matter or protection, they merely delete claims, the public interest favours alignment with the EP patent and the period of delay (14 months) did not, on the facts and having regard to explanations and absence of assertion, defeat the exercise of the court's discretion.

  • 13 Jul 2016

    CELLTRION, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC.

    Citation
    CELLTRION, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1873/2013

    The proposed amendments comply with ss.102 and 103 as they do not add subject‑matter or extend protection; notwithstanding delay, there was no unfair advantage obtained by Genentech nor demonstrated detriment to others, and neither the opponent nor the Registrar opposed the amendments; exercising the court's discretion in the round, the amendments are allowed.

  • 1 Sept 2011

    OTTER CONTROLS LTD v. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS

    Citation
    OTTER CONTROLS LTD v. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP632/2011

    Leave to amend was granted because the amendments did not expand the scope of the patents, the delay was satisfactorily explained as inadvertence, the applications were unopposed and it was in the public interest to allow the amendments to align the Hong Kong patents with the amended UK and European specifications.

  • 1 Sept 2011

    OTTER CONTROLS LTD v. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS

    Citation
    OTTER CONTROLS LTD v. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP633/2011

    Leave to amend was granted because the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay (inadvertence), the proposed amendments did not expand the scope of the patents but aligned them with amended UK/EP specifications (and corrected an obvious typographical error), there was no opposition or prior assertion of the unamended patents, and the Registrar raised no objection; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant.

  • 5 Dec 2002

    MERCK SHARP & DOHME LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS

    Citation
    MERCK SHARP & DOHME LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV11/2002

    Sections 39(1) and the reference to s39(1) in s100(2) of the Patents (General) Rules are ultra vires because rules regulating the giving effect to s46 court orders are rules of court to be made by the Rules Committee under the High Court Ordinance, not by the Registrar, and because the impugned rules are inconsistent with s46(5) which imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to record amendments upon receipt of the court order; therefore the Registrar must record the amendment ordered by the court and the impugned rules are of no legal effect.

  • 15 Feb 1999

    IN RE LOW BAN CHAI

    Citation
    IN RE LOW BAN CHAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP5413/1998

    The application to amend Hong Kong Patent No.352/95 was granted because the applicant complied with the statutory procedure and the court's directions, the amendments to the corresponding UK patent had been advertised and were unopposed, and section 46 empowers the court to make such amendments; consequently the Registrar must record the amendments and there is to be no order as to costs.