Patent decision

BL number
O/388/01
Concerning rights in
GB 2165292 C
Hearing Officer
Mr S N Dennehey
Decision date
6 September 2001
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Clear Focus Imaging Inc v Contra Vision Limited
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 sections 27, 71, 75; PR 1995 rule 78
Keywords
Amendment, Evidence
Related Decisions
O/079/00, O/137/00, O/412/00

Summary

Following refusal of a request to amend under section 75 (originally made under section 27), Contra Vision filed a revised proposal. Both parties sought to file further evidence in respect of the revised proposal; and Clear Focus argued that the revised proposal should be advertised.

The hearing officer declined to exercise the comptrollers discretion either in favour of admitting new evidence or in favour of re-advertisement. He refused to admit the further evidence on the grounds that admission outside the prescribed evidence rounds would require compelling supporting reasons; and he refused re-advertisement on the grounds that the revised proposal appeared to fall within the scope of the original amendment which had been advertised.

The parties were given a period of one month in which to request an oral hearing on the substantive matter or to confirm that the matter should be decided on the papers. They were also free to submit any further written comments on the allowability of the revised proposal during that period.

Full decision O/388/01 PDF document413Kb