The government has published provisional statistics on injuries on public roads in Great Britain...
The Patents County Court has held that it had the same jurisdiction to deal with amendments to a patent, after the underlying case had settled, as the High Court held it had in Lars Norling v Eez-Away [1997] RPC 160. However, HHJ Birss QC stated that the Patents County Court should not necessarily go ahead and deal with the amendments in any circumstances, because there could be situations where the proper course was for the patentee to apply to the Comptroller instead. In this case the Comptroller had indicated he had no comments to make, no opponent had come forward following the advertisement of the amendments and the claimant had made no objection to the amendments per se. As there was no opponent and no matter of public interest arising, it was not inappropriate for the amendments to be dealt with in the Patents County Court. (Industrial Self Adhesives Ltd v Telnek and others [2012])