 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Edward Evans Barker v Oystertec plc (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o29802 (25 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o29802.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o29802 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29802
Summary
In revocation proceedings under sections 72(1)(a), (c) and (d), the defendants had declined to file a counter-statement on the grounds that the claimants, a firm of patent agents who had applied in their own name for revocation, were not the real applicants. The claimants believed themselves entitled to be regarded as such in view of section 72(1) which allowed 'any person' to apply.
In the light of Cairnstores Ltd v Aktiebolaget Hassle (Patents Court 19/03/2002, unreported), EPO Decision G03,04/97 (INDUPACK), and Sanders Associates Incs Patent (BL O/89/81), the hearing officer found that the claimants were entitled to bring the action irrespective of whether or not they were acting for anyone else. An order for disclosure of the name of anyone for whom the claimants were acting was not necessary at least at this stage of the proceedings. Bearing in mind the public interest underlying revocation proceedings, and that the grounds for revocation did not appear to depend on the identity of the applicant, the hearing officer did not accept the defendants argument that it was necessary to know the real applicants in order (i) to ensure a fair and public hearing in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 as referring to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and (ii) to prevent abuse of process before the comptroller. The defendants were ordered to file a counter-statement.