tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7278823740089294552..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Court of Appeal on Recusal - just in time to be too lateVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7216542133549332952013-11-27T15:49:14.365+00:002013-11-27T15:49:14.365+00:00Darren
Fair enough - it is not often that you see...Darren<br /><br />Fair enough - it is not often that you see Richard Arnold the person as opposed to Arnold J. the judge.<br /><br />AAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37382834202235727372013-11-27T13:14:48.516+00:002013-11-27T13:14:48.516+00:00Whilst more balanced than previous posts on this s...Whilst more balanced than previous posts on this subject, the implication arising from this post needs some rebalancing. If one reads the Dutch first instance judgment, it is clear that Professor Baldwin's testimony was - indeed - only a small part of the reasoning. Further, all those parts of that judgment which could have been supported by Professor Baldwin's testimony, have now been overturned by the Dutch Supreme Court (leaving only matters unrelated to his testimony to be the subject of further examination by the Dutch Court of Appeal in due course). In common with the other 9 jurisdictions around the world in which the validity of the patent in suit has been challenged, therefore, Professor Baldwin's arguments (he personally gave evidence in 4 jurisdictions) have been rejected in favour of Professor Davies' arguments (he gave evidence in 9). Leaving aside the Dutch Court of Appeal, the patent has therefore ultimately been found valid by every Court that has examined it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74898530326410504182013-11-26T11:28:10.548+00:002013-11-26T11:28:10.548+00:00Dear Ashley, You are quite correct that Arnold J&...Dear Ashley, You are quite correct that Arnold J's recollections of undergraduate days are notable and interesting, and my post probably should indeed have quoted them. There is a reason why I did not - they were present in the first instance judgment and therefore did not seem to be "news". I think that many chemists (and indeed practising scientists of other disciplines) have reached an epiphany similar to Arnold's and then turned to law - some earlier, some later - and so I expect that his comments will resonate with many.<br />Kind regards<br />DarrenDarren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9432799323953366752013-11-25T16:08:04.118+00:002013-11-25T16:08:04.118+00:00But you should have said something about Arnold J&...But you should have said something about Arnold J's recollections of his undergraduate days, about him being demoralised at the failure of most of his experiments (welcome to chemistry), the offer of the D.Phill place and being predicted to get (and getting) a second class degree (nothing wrong with that, I have one myself). Although the Chancellor's judgment is, of course, an excellently fashioned piece of judicial reasoning, Arnold J's account of his undergraduate days is an excellently reasoned piece of judicial recollection.<br /><br />AshleyAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90983318509533897612013-11-25T15:30:01.438+00:002013-11-25T15:30:01.438+00:00This is a nice judgment and I am sure is correct. ...This is a nice judgment and I am sure is correct. The important point is for judges to recognise as part of their everyday practice that subconscious influences can be powerful. I'm sure that if one carried out stats on judgments one would be able to see those that are more likely to find validity, infringement etc, and it's important for the system to keep working to get rid of those things.Lindanoreply@blogger.com