 |
[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 >> GAT Microencapsulation GmbH v Syngenta Ltd (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o03707 (31 January 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o03707.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o3707, [2007] UKIntelP o03707 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o03707
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.