Tehrani v Bonaduz AG & Ors.
Decision date: 18 February 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This was an application by Professor Tehrani to amend claim 1 of her patent after a trial that had found the patent invalid for lack of novelty over Waisel. The proposed amendment (changing “a next breath” to “the next breath” and consequential edits) was held to be an impermissible post‑trial type (c) amendment that would create a new claim and likely provoke a further trial. The application was dismissed as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson and inconsistent with the CPR overriding objective; the applicant’s reliance on drafting advice and her current unrepresented status did not excuse the delay.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Post‑trial amendments which, if allowed, would set up a new claim that could and should have been advanced before the original trial (type (c) amendments) will generally be refused because they amount to an abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson) and are inconsistent with the CPR overriding objective; late reliance on drafting conventions or prior professional advice is not ordinarily a sufficient excuse for failing to seek the amendment earlier.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge noted (drawing on the Warner‑Lambert/Supreme Court line) that the Supreme Court authorities do not absolutely rule out allowing a further trial resulting from an amendment, and that public policy considerations may in some circumstances permit more latitude to individual litigants; however, such latitude was not appropriate where the point had been squarely raised before trial and the litigant had professional representation.
Warning
- The transcript includes duplicated passages; the judge recorded he had not had time to check whether the Supreme Court point was strictly ratio, although he treated it as binding/persuasive. The provided notes contain some duplicated passages and record that the judge had not fully checked whether certain Supreme Court points were strictly ratio, so the judgment may be materially incomplete.