Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Transcript of the Stenographic Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., Midway House, 27/29 Cursitor Street, London EC4A 1LT. Telephone No: 020 7405 5010. Fax No: 020 7405 5026
MR. C.H. JONES and MR. PETER COLLEY (instructed by Messrs. Tarlo Lyons for the Claimant) MR. PUSHPINDER SAINI (instructed by Messrs. Bird & Bird for the Defendant) ____________________
In my judgment, as a matter of construction they did not. Rights would have arisen in favour of QRS if BTG had been proposing to abandon the patents, but they did not arise where what BTG was proposing was not to abandon the patents but to assign them.
In my judgment, the answer is yes, not on grounds of mutual mistake but rather on grounds of unilateral mistake.
Where I have read "[or]" the agreement reads "to" but I think that that is an obvious slip. Henceforth in this judgment I shall assume that the word is "or".
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.