Patent decision
- BL number
- O/037/07
- Concerning rights in
- EP 0824313
- Hearing Officer
- Mr P Hayward
- Decision date
- 31 January 2007
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- GAT Microencapsulation GmbH v Syngenta Ltd
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 Section 72
- Keywords
- Revocation, Striking out
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The counterstatement in an application for revocation was found not to be adequate as, in respect of three areas, it did not really say whether an allegation was being denied or agreed with, particularly one in which there was no more than a statement that there would be full reference to the disclosure of prior art documents at hearing. The hearing officer decided that, although he had the power to strike out, it would not be appropriate at this stage since the counterstatement as a whole was more than a bare denial as it addressed many of the allegations in sufficient detail. The defendant was given the opportunity to amend the counterstatement in sufficient detail that the claimant can focus their evidence properly.
Full decision O/037/07 36Kb