Anterior 12 / 12 Próximo

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1999 (1) SA 70 (SCA) at 77H78B [also reported at [1998] 4 All SA 453 (SCA) Ed]. See also Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1971 BP 58 (A) at 88CF; 1972 (1) SA 589 (A) at 613D618G [also reported at [1972] 1 All SA 201 (A) Ed]. At 90 para [25]. Bateman, supra at 653CH; Interfelt Products (Pty) Ltd v Feltex Ltd 1972 BP 294 (T). Bateman 2000 (1) SA 649 (SCA) at 654FI. 1997 BIP 113 (CP) 123. Van Staden NO v Firstrand Ltd 2008 (3) SA 530 (T) at 539D. Para [60] of respondent's heads of argument at 18 of 19 thereof. Record at 154 para [18]. Ausplow (Pty) Ltd v Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd and others 2011 BIP 12 (SCA) at para [9]. Founding affidavit of Farrar at 155 para [20.3].

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

SHFL Entertainment Inc (formerly Shuffle Master Inc) v TCS John Huxley (Pty) Ltd and another [2014]

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitud: -28.58043087631903

Longitud: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: 23 oct 2103

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Upheld

Keywords

Intellectual Property

Judicial Body: Administrative Court

Court Name: NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

Case Number: 2000/5613

Case Summary: The applicant was the registered proprietor of a patent. It instituted action against the first respondent, alleging that its patent had been infringed. That matter was pending. In the present application, the applicant sought an amendment of the patent. In opposing the amendment, the respondent averred that the patentee had failed to provide full reasons for theamendment; that the amendment sought did not comply with section 51(6) and (7) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978;and that the court should exercise its discretion to refuse the amendment sought on the basis that the patentee had procrastinated or delayed culpably, in bringing the amendment application and had acted mala fide in seeking to enforce the patent in the motion proceedings. Held There is no statutory duty or obligation on a patentee to provide reasons for seeking an amendment to a patent in circumstances, as in this case, where revocation proceedings relating to the patent are pending. The general rule in applications of this nature is that an amendment will usually be permitted unless the conduct of the patentee has been such that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, considers that the amendment should be refused. Having regard to the grounds of opposition raised by the respondent, the Court found that it had not justified its opposition to the amendment. The application succeeded

Related Caselaw

Related Law

The Patents Act

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 8 sept 2024

Documentos primarios

SHFL Entertainment Inc (formerly Shuffle Master Inc) v TCS John Huxley (Pty) Ltd and another [2014].pdf
English
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

SHFL Entertainment Inc (formerly Shuffle Master Inc) v TCS John Huxley (Pty) Ltd and another [2014]

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones