Patent decision

BL number

O/683/18

Concerning rights in

GB2508779 and GB2393487

Hearing Officer

Mr H Jones

Decision date

31 October 2018

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Nut Security Products Limited and SafetyTrim Worldwide Holdings Limited

Provisions discussed

Sections 8 and 37

Keywords

Amendment, Costs, Decline to deal, Jurisdiction, Pleadings, Striking out

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The claimant submitted a late request to amend its statement of grounds shortly before the hearing, which would have the effect of adding further parties to the entitlement case and introduce a claim to unjust enrichment that the comptroller has no jurisdiction to decide. If the amendment was to be allowed, the claimant said that the comptroller should decline to deal with the matter because of the jurisdiction issue.

The defendant said that the amendment should not be allowed because it was made so late in proceedings. If it were to be allowed, the claim to unjust enrichment should be struck out. It later became necessary to adjourn the hearing because the person who had prosecuted the case for the claimant and a key witness in proceedings, could not attend due to ill-health.

The Hearing Officer found that the claimant had not acted unreasonably in prosecuting the case as a litigant-in-person and allowed the statement of grounds to be amended despite the late request. The claimant was not allowed to amend the statement to include the claim for unjust enrichment, so the question of strike-out fell away. The comptroller would decline to deal with the amended entitlement case if a claim for unjust enrichment was put to the court.

The issue of costs was considered, with the Hearing Officer finding that the claimant had acted unreasonably in not informing the defendant earlier that he would not be attending the hearing. Wasted costs in relation to this would be awarded on a compensation basis. The claimant had not acted unreasonably in submitting a late request for amendment, and costs for wasted effort would be awarded on a contribution basis at the top end of the scale. The defendant was invited to submit a detailed breakdown of its costs.

Full decision O/683/18 199Kb