Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2003 120(12):411-433; doi:10.1093/rpc/2003rpc22
© 2003 by Crown Copyright
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2003] R.P.C. 22

INTERFILTA (UK) LTD'S PATENT

Patent Office

Before: MR PETER HAYWARD May 13, 14, September 18 and October 7, 20021

[2003] R.P.C. 22

Patent—Application for revocation—Substantive hearing—Evidence taken via video link—Whether submissions made after close of hearing but before decision admissible—Whether procedural irregularities in video link evidence—Whether patentee allowed to resile from concessions made at oral hearing.

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.