British Steel Plc's Patent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Patent Office |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant/Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others
...be looked at in the total context of the activities of the employer concerned to see whether it is outstanding". Dr. Ferdinando in British Steel PLC's Patent, [1992] RPC 117 said, at page 5 of the transcript: "Thirdly, subsection (1) makes clear that the patent must be of 'outstanding' ben......
-
Ian Alexander Shanks (Claimant and Appellant) v Unilever Plc and Others (Defendants and Respondents)
...20. Aldous J also did not disagree with a statement made by a superintending examiner in British Steel PLC's Patent (Monks' Application) [1992] RPC 117 in which it was said that: 'While Mr Tritton was plainly correct in describing "outstanding" as a comparative term, I would regard it as go......
-
Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others
...because the employer had received substantial orders for equipment not employing the invention well after its merits were known. In British Steel PLC's Patent [1992] RPC 117, 122, Dr Ferdinando, for the Comptroller, thought the word “outstanding” implied a superlative. The patent related t......
-
(1)Kelly (James Duncan) (2)Kwok Wai Chiu v GE Healthcare Ltd
...see whether it is outstanding.” 20 Aldous J also did not disagree with a statement made by a superintending examiner in British Steel PLC's Patent (Monks' Application) [1992] RPC 117 in which it was said that: “While Mr Tritton was plainly correct in describing 'outstanding' as a comparativ......
Request a trial to view additional results