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.
Mr U. Staunton and Mr P. Acland (instructed by Lupton Fawcett) for the appellant Mr G. Fernando (instructed by Walker Morris) for the respondent Hearing dates: 6 October 2005 ____________________
Later in his speech (at p.125) Lord Upjohn gave this warning against attempting to reformulate the rule by reference to the facts of particular cases:
I should note that s.36(3) has been amended by s.9 of the Patents Act 2004, but it was agreed between the parties that, for the purposes of this appeal, I should consider s. 36(3) in its unamended form.
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.