Hi-Fi News covered the patent hearings in articles by Adrian Hope (aka Barry Fox).
From the articles we can see that the hearing was specifically about the application for a patent concerning the point bearing as used for the original Ariston RD11 turntable. The background concerning the development of the turntable also needed to be taken into consideration with regards to any remedies (possible costs/damages or other actions) that would result from the decision about whether or not to grant the patent.
If anyone wants to read the Hi-Fi News coverage of the patent hearing then it is here. Thanks to Rob Holt for the scan of the later article.
https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/
https://postimg.cc/image/7abe0ye79/
https://postimg.cc/image/4g88nirgl/
https://postimg.cc/image/e0rvae92t/
If the process for patent hearings in 1976/77 was anything like the modern approach then it was probably what is now known as an inter partes hearing. Much of the work is done prior to the hearing. This requires comprehensive written statements from each party to be submitted in advance of the hearing and shared with the other parties in an iteritive process of discovery. Evidence consists of witness statements and supporting documents or material. Each side is provided with copies of the other parties submissions and expected to respond by identifying what they wish to contest. If they don't contest something then by default they have agreed.
The physical Patent Hearing in a court room is intended to address the contested content from the written submissions along with legal arguments and the modern guidelines state that new evidence should not be submitted at the physical hearing unless agreed by the Patent Hearing Officer (Comptroller).
The Hearing Officers do not do their own research so will reach a decision based on the patent application and the written submissions along with clarification from verbal testimony provided at the physical hearing. By process and training the Hearing Officer is required to be even handed in how they administer the hearing. It would create grounds for an appeal if they were not even handed.
From the articles we can see that the hearing was specifically about the application for a patent concerning the point bearing as used for the original Ariston RD11 turntable.
"The Officer saw the nub of the disputed invention as the point contact bearing formed by the conical end of the platter spindle. And it was agreed all round that this, by minimising rumble was indeed the nub of the invention. The Hearing Officer then went on to summarize the train of events that led up to the current marketing of Linn turntables. To the best of my knowledge this has not previously been crystallised, so thanks are due to the officer for his delightfully clear summary of the situation.
Indeed, anyone both puzzled by and interested in the history of the Ariston-Linn saga need look no futher than the Hearing Officer's main decision for a full breakdown of the extraordinary facts surrounding this unique episode in Audio History.
To summarize the summary: Jack Tiefenbrun formed Castle Precision Engineering (Glasgow) Ltd. 15 years ago. Hamish Robertson had a company called Thermac in 1967 which became Ariston in 1970 and Ariston Audio in 1973. In 1970 Jack Tiefenbrun's son Ivor Tiefenbrun bought some Hi-Fi equipment and became friendly with Hamish Robertson. Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971. While Ivor was away, Jack Tiefenbrun and Hamish Robertson changed the ball bearing to a point bearing. Robertsons's company Thermac then ordered some 40 such units from Castle. Now as Ariston, Robertson then planned a display of the units for Harrogate in September 1971. C. W. and J Walker were appointed selling agents for the turntable- by now christened the RD11. The turntable was indeed shown at Harrogate that year and the RD11 sales literature boasted "a unique single point bearing" and "almost rumble free sound". The next year (1972) Jack Tiefenbrun filed the two provisional patent specifications on which the disputed patent (BP 1 394 611) was finally to issue. By the end of that year (1972) there had been a deteriation, and finally a breakdown, of relationships between Robertson and Ariston on one hand and the Tiefenbrun's on the other. This culminated with a threat to Robertson that a copyright action would be brought against him if he had the RD11 turntable made elsewhere than at Castle by Tiefenbrun.
In February 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell single-point bearing turntables made by Castle. Ariston was then taken over by Dunlop Westayr Ltd. and the separate firm Fergus Fons formed with Robertson as director. As we have already seen, it was Fons and Robertson and not Ariston-Dunlop-Westayr, who attacked the Tiefenbrun patent claims.".
There is plenty of interest in the coverage but one of the key points is that "Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971" is stated as a fact (ie uncontested) in the Hearing Officer summary. Adrian Hope insisted his article contained an accurate synopsis so there are only 2 possible options to explain this.
1. Hamish submitted an alternative version in his written submission but the Hearing Officer ignored it even though it would have been very relevent to any decisions about remedies. This would be a serious failing by the officer who would need to review both versions and justify using one submission in preference to the other. I would also have expected the Adrian Hope article to cover different disputed versions if Hamish submitted one. This option looks so unlikely that I personally dismiss it.
2. Hamish did not submit an alternative version in his written submission and as a result conceded that the RD11 turntable was based on a prototype by Ivor.
If the Tiefenbrun's could produce a lot of witnesses that their version was correct then it would have been a huge mistake by Hamish to submit an alternative version that was false. If the Tiefenbrun's version was fake then they would have struggled to produce witnesses and I would have expected Hamish to submit his own different version.
Whether or not Hamish submitted an alternative version is something that will be verifiable by reviewing the patent hearing documentation copies of which should be held by the British Library in London.
Outside the hearing Ivor has named former Castle staff who helped him with the development. "The design benefited from the input of my late father who designed the patented single point bearing and from the key engineering staff at Castle Precision Engineering, my late father’s company, including John Cross, Bob Hamond, George Borthwick and the late Russell Christie and Edgar Clumpas who all enthusiastically helped me with this ‘lunchtime’ project, along with many other employees at Castle". This implies that the Tiefenbruns would have been able to call on many witnesses at the hearing if true.
PF interview with Ivor Tiefenbrun
Also elsewhere Ray Collins, a former Castle employee (and later Ariston Acoustics) not named by Ivor above told Nigel Pearson that he helped Ivor with the development which provides some independent corroboration that Ivor did the early development. "Ray used to do listening tests with Ivor. Ray said he couldn't hear the differences and would humour Ivor by saying he did".
All the versions on the web from Hamish supporters start out with him approaching the Tiefenbruns with a turntable he had designed by magic. None of them provide details of the magic trick. The patent hearing makes it quite clear that the magic trick was to use a prototype turntable developed by Ivor Tiefenbrun.