The Gazette 1978

motion for Alimony Pendente Lite prior to Act. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married and had four children. In 1971 the Plaintiff had issued a petition for Divorce A Mensa et Thoro against the Defendant. In 1972 the Plaintiff brought a motion for alimony pendente lite. In 1973 it was announced in Court by Counsel for the parties that a settlement of the petition had been reached on the basis of a written consent signed by the parties and their respective solicitors and such settlement was handed into court. By the consent of the parties, the court ordered that the said consent should be received andfiled with and deemed to be part of the order of the Court and also by consent directed that all further proceedings on the petition and on foot of the motion for alimony pendente lite be stayed on the terms set out on the consent with liberty to either party to apply to the court at a later date. The relevant provisions of the consent included: 1.That the petition should stand dismissed and that the motion for alimony should be adjourned sine die. 2. That the Defendant should pay to the applicant in full satisfaction of all claims in the petition the sum of £10,000. 3. That the parties were to act as joint guardians of the children and the custody of the children was granted until further order to the applicant. 4. The Defendant undertook to pay for the education of certain of the children. 5. The Plaintiff undertook to indemnify and keep indemnified the Defendant against all claims of whatever nature whether arising either before or after the execution of the consent for which he might otherwise be liable as husband of the Plaintiff. 6. Liberty was reserved to either party to apply to the court. On the 24th March, 1977 a Special Summons was issued in the High Court by the Plaintiff against the Defendant claiming inter alia: 1. Relief pursuant to Section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. 2. An order giving directions regarding the welfare of the two younger children and directing the Defendant to pay towards the maintenance of these two children such weekly or other periodical sums as having regard to the

Further, that the purpose of the section was to make provision for cases in which, by error or some impropriety, an intended entry was "not inserted" or "omitted". This had not been contended in this case. It had been contended that the subsection might be used by a registered proprietor to mend his h a nd a f t e r t he c omp l e t ed Specification had been accepted and even after the Patent had been sealed, because something unforeseen had, in the meantime, arisen. This was not the intention of the section. In relation to (2) above that the Convention Application cannot be amended into an application made under Section 6 (1) of the Act either as the true and first inventor or the invention to which the application related or as the person to whom the true and first inventor of the invention had assigned the right to make the application after the sealing and granting of the Patent. Rule 84 (1) of the Patent Rules 1965 was considered. This provides for an application to be made for leave to amend an application for a Patent. It was noted that it was the practice of the Patents Office, under this rule, to allow a Convention Application to be amended into an application made under Section 6 (1) of the Act at any time up to the acceptance of the complete Specification even though it is not expressly provided for in the Rule. It was further noted that under Rule 26 (1) a Certificate of Inventorship was required for an application made under Section 6(1) whereas it was not required for a convention application. Thus, it would appear to be wholly contrary to the provisions of the Act that a Patent granted pursuant to a convention application for which a Certificate of Inventorship was not necessary, could, subsequent to the granting and sealing of the Patent, be converted into one made pursuant to an application under Section 6 (1) where such certificate was essential. Beecham Group Limited and the Controller of Patents Designs and Trade Marks and Bristol Myers Company— Supreme Court (per Parke j. with Henchy & Griffin J J . ) - 11 May, 1978—Unreported. FAMILY LAW Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976—Effect on Spouses right to maintenance under Section 5 of a consent to petition for Divorce A Mensa et Thoro and

November, 1974 a Notice of Opposition to application number 33574 was filed by the second-named Defendant. After that date, the second-named Defendant inspected the specification of No. 33511 and on the 21st April, 1976 applied to amend its Notice of Opposition by citing against No. 33574 certain information disclosed in the specification of No. 33511. This application was duly granted by the Controller. The result of this sequence of events was that the Plaintiff was embarrassed by the priority date which was obtained in respect of 33511 by reason of it being a Convention Application. It sought in these proceedings to disclaim the priority date of application in the U.K. (14th August, 1968) in favour of the date of application in this country (5th August, 1969) by attempting to convert patent no. 33511 into a patent granted in pursuance of an application under Section 6 (1) of the Act by the true and first inventor or his assignee instead of a Patent granted under Section 6(2) on the application of a person who had applied in the convention country. The Plaintiff sought orders pursuant to Section 65 of the Act requiring the necessary changes to be made in the Register of Patents. "Section 65 (1) provides that: Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court may on the application in the prescribed manner of any person agreed by the non- insertion in or omission from the Register of any entry or by any entry made in the Register without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining in the Register, or by an error or defect in any entry in the Register make such order for making, expunging or varying any such entry as it may think fit". Held : (Supreme Court, per Parke J. nem. diss.) that "to succeed in his application, the Plaintiff must extablish: (1) that it is a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the section, and that it is aggrieved by reason of "the non-insertion in or omission from" the register of an entry; and (2) that apart altogether from the construction of Section 65 (1) the relief which it claims is permissible under the. Act." In relation to (1) above that the Plaintiff, being the applicant for the registration of the Patent, was not a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Subsection 65 (1).