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 >> Clear Focus Imaging Inc v Contra Vision Limited (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o28705 (25 October 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o28705.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o28705

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


Clear Focus Imaging Inc v Contra Vision Limited [2005] UKIntelP o28705 (25 October 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o28705

Patent decision

BL number
O/287/05
Concerning rights in
GB 2165292
Hearing Officer
Mr P Back
Decision date
25 October 2005
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Clear Focus Imaging Inc v Contra Vision Limited
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 section 71
Keywords
Infringement, Pleadings
Related Decisions
[2000] UKIntelP o07900, [2000] UKIntelP o13700, [2000] UKIntelP o41200, [2001] UKIntelP o38801, [2003] UKIntelP o09903, CH/2001/APP/010716

Summary

The claimant, Clear Focus Imaging Inc, sought to introduce amended pleadings at a late stage in the proceedings. The amendments extend an existing attack on the validity of one claim on the ground that it involves added subject matter, to certain other claims dependant on it. They also adduce a new ground in relation to validity of certain claims, based on the change in the law in relation to product-by-process claims introduced by the judgment in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9 Notwithstanding a considerable presumption against the introduction of new pleadings at this stage, the Hearing Officer admitted the amendments on the basis that the first was trivial and the second was necessary to allow the case to be argued in relation to the law as it now stands.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o28705.html