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 PDF document36Kb