Talk:Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd

message: It would be interesting to know why the two cases have been consolidated into one. If I understood this correctly.--Edcolins 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edcollins, yes the two cases were consolidated into one, so to speak. And this  was because Lord Justice Jacob decided that the two cases ought to be heard together, presumably because he thought that they raised common legal issues - in this regard see the court's Order dated 26 May 2006 (and particularly the part of that Order headed "Information for or directions to the parties"). And having heard the two cases togeher, it seems that the Court decided that it would be sensible to issue a single judgment document in respect of them, which it went on to do. --Neal Macrossan 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two cases and one decision 

message: Gdallimore wrote to Nowa on 6 March 2007 saying -
"Also, your most recent edit is not correct. The UKPO examined [Macrossan's] application under the CFPH procedure ..."
Sorry, but that is not correct. The UKPO did not examine my application under the CFPH procedure. The CFPH decision was not handed down until 21 July 2005, whereas my patent application was examined by the UKPO in early 2004.
--Neal Macrossan 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake again, sorry. The source of my confusion was the edit that said that the UKPO determined that the inventive aspects were excluded. That is the CFPH test. Consequently, my assertion that the edit was wrong is doubly true if the UKPO weren't actually applying CFPH at the time. As part of the re-write, I plan to go over the history of the UKPO examination and High Court judgment. GDallimore (Talk) 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, even though I don't get the point about the edit, thanks for the acknowledgment.--Neal Macrossan 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Macrossan's application examined by the UKPO under the CFPH procedure?

message: Since there are going to be lots of citations to Bailii in this article, I've created a new template, template:Cite BAILII, to automatically generate links. I'm having some problems getting it to work properly. Please visit template talk:Cite BAILII if you what to help! GDallimore (Talk) 14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template help - BAILII citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928002653/http://www.boult.com/information/BulletinDetails.cfm?BulletinID=142 to http://www.boult.com/information/BulletinDetails.cfm?BulletinID=142
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206031521/http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm to http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified