 |
[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 >> Linstol UK Limited v David Huang (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o46012 (21 November 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o46012.html Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o46012 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
In an earlier interim decision relating to an application for revocation, the claims of the patent had been found to be invalid but the patentee was allowed the opportunity to file amendments under s.75 aimed at rectifying the defects found. A request to amend was subsequently filed which was opposed by the claimant for revocation. The patentee (a Taiwan resident) was directed to provide security for costs, the order specifying different amounts of security depending on whether the action proceeded to a hearing or was to be decided on the papers. Following a case management conference at which it was agreed that there should be an oral hearing, the patentee failed to provide the required security for costs.
The claimant submitted that in accordance with s.107(4) of the Act, the patentee should be taken to have abandoned his case. The Hearing Officer considered that although this was a matter of discretion, where there is failure to provide security for costs, abandonment should be regarded as the usually expected outcome in the absence of good reasons to the contrary. The patentee’s behaviour, in going away on a business trip without leaving any means to be contacted or any instructions for his representative in the UK, left little room for doubt that he had lost all interest in the proceedings. In these circumstances it was appropriate to exercise discretion to treat the application for amendment as abandoned. Since the unamended patent had previously been found to be invalid it followed that it should be revoked under s. 72(1).