tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1220580208002557656..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The future of UK design: clearer, easier, strongerVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-95753674432776582014-03-14T07:58:07.398+00:002014-03-14T07:58:07.398+00:00Contrast that though with the use made of the IPO ...Contrast that though with the use made of the IPO opinion in FH Brundle (A Private Unlimited Company) v Perry [2014] EWHC 475 (IPEC) (06 March 2014) <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4397324301383899112014-03-13T17:01:49.095+00:002014-03-13T17:01:49.095+00:00"What might be interesting is the way in whic..."What might be interesting is the way in which those opinions could be used and how they could be regarded to within possible proceedings."<br /><br />In a recent case in the Patents Court of England & Wales (<i>Blue Gentian et al v Tristar Products, <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2013/4098.html" rel="nofollow">[2013] EWHC 4098 (Pat)</a></i>) the judge was provided with a Patent Office Opinion relevant to the validity of the patent but he chose not to read it. Unfortunately the judgment does not give his reasons.Peter Smithnoreply@blogger.com