Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 2174 Statutes: Patents Act 1977 12 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.142571
Sufficiency, Support – The invention appears to relate to the use of certain compounds in nuclear imaging for discovering the cause of cancer. The Hearing Officer decided that the claimed invention was not disclosed in a manner that was clear and complete enough for it to be performed by a skilled person, and was not … Continue reading Alaa Hussein Al-Darraji (Patent): IPO 19 Dec 2012
In an earlier interim decision relating to an application for revocation, the claims of the patent had been found to be invalid but the patentee was allowed the opportunity to file amendments under s.75 aimed at rectifying the defects found. A request to amend was subsequently filed which was opposed by the claimant for revocation. … Continue reading Linstol UK Limited v Huang (Patent): IPO 21 Nov 2012
The application related to method of storing data in a computer. The method relied on de-duplication of the data such that only one copy of the data is stored. If an attempt is made to store a further copy of the same data then instead of storing that same data again, a pointer to the … Continue reading Quantum Corporation (Patent): IPO 14 Nov 2012
IPO The application concerned a flood protection system. The Hearing Officer decided that the latest version of the claim on the official file at the end of the compliance period was anticipated by three earlier published patent applications. However, he decided that if the compliance period were to be extended, the applicant should be able … Continue reading Thomas R Cann (Patent): IPO 17 Oct 2012
The application was filed on 29 June 2009 by an applicant who was resident in China, but who had correctly provided a UK address for service. The application proceeded normally until 21 June 2011, when the Office sent the applicant a reminder that if he wished to continue with the application, the request for a … Continue reading Bode Oluwa (Patent) O/378/12: IPO 3 Oct 2012
IPO Patent applications GB0621068.6 and GB0621069.4 relate to methods where parthenogenesis is used to activate a human oocyte (i.e. stimulation of a human oocyte, without fertilisation by a sperm cell) to produce a parthenogenetically-activated oocyte or ‘parthenote’. GB0621068.6 concerns the production of human stem cells from such parthenotes, whilst GB0621069.4 concerns human synthetic corneas and … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation (Patent): IPO 16 Aug 2012
ICO The application relates to a method of providing a financial ‘risk score’ within the authorisation process of a wireless financial transaction. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and concluded … Continue reading Bank of America Corporation (Patent): IPO 4 Oct 2012
IPO The application relates to a computer system which implements a computer program for searching and displaying biological information stored in one or more databases by converting the information from the database(s) into a ternary matrix using three separate characters to represent biological information eg 0, 1 and |. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan … Continue reading Fabio Passetti Et Al (Patent): IPO 3 Jul 2012
A request by Mr Parfitt for an opinion was found to cover essentially the same issues already considered by an earlier opinion and a decision reviewing that earlier opinion. The Hearing Officer taking into account all the circumstances therefore refused the second request for an opinion Judges: Mr P Thorpe Citations: [2012] UKIntelP o26512, GB2436776 … Continue reading Duncan James Parfitt (Patent): IPO 10 Jul 2012
Berni Hambleton of Sterling IP initiated proceedings under section 72(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for revocation of the patent on the grounds that the invention as defined in claims 1, 21 to 25 and 34 was not entitled to its earliest priority date, and that the invention as such lacked an inventive step over … Continue reading Hambleton of Sterling IP and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Patent): IPO 6 Aug 2012
The invention concerned a device for showing correct ladder angle, comprising a weighted indicator connected via a hoop to a semi-circular rail, positioned near the top of a symbol ‘A’. The indicator moved along the rail as the ladder incline changed. Correct ladder angle was shown by alignment with a marking within a limb of … Continue reading Kevin Hickey (Patent): IPO 7 Jun 2012
Entitlement – This was an uncontested entitlement action, the registered proprietor of the patent application having been dissolved. The Hearing Officer accepted that, on the balance of probabilities, the matter in the patent application belonged to the claimant. As the application was refused nearly three years ago, the Hearing Officer could not make an order … Continue reading Russell Taylor v AQ Plc (Patent): IPO 1 May 2012
IPO This application relates to a method and arrangement for investigating an unknown calling party that has sent a communication request to a called party, in order to provide information on the relationship between the calling party and the called party. The called party can then use this information to decide whether to accept the … Continue reading Telefonakiebolaget LM Ericsson (Patent): IPO 2 May 2012
IPO Excluded fields (refused) – The application relates to a method of retrieving financial information stored in a first database by using a second database, which contains data referencing the first database, as a dictionary or index. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely … Continue reading Bank of America Corporation (Patent): IPO 9 May 2012
IPO Inventive step – The application is concerned with installing software on a computer system and resolving any dependencies that arise by making copies of dependant resources. The examiner’s inventive step objection was based on two sets of citations, the first set showing that it is known to copy shared resources and the second set … Continue reading Vmware Inc (Patent): IPO 25 Apr 2012
IPO Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step – The invention relates to a computer-controlled system for ordering food and/or drink in a restaurant in which a projector mounted above the dining table is used to project plate shaped images of the actual food which can be ordered onto the surface of the table where customers are … Continue reading Compurants Ltd (Patent) O/187/12: IPO 4 May 2012
Entitlement, Inventorship, Striking out – The defendant requested that the reference under section 8 (now under section 35) be stuck out. The reasons given included that the claimant had delayed launching entitlement proceedings, had not filed any evidence and had misrepresented the invention in its statement of claim. The request to strike out was refused … Continue reading Andrew Cooke and Watermist Limited (Patent): IPO 8 Feb 2012
IPO The application relates to a method of predicting the behaviour of a process using a computer program. It was accepted that predicting the behaviour of a process is excluded under section 1(2) as being a computer program as such, unless the prediction is used for control or diagnostic purposes. Amendments to the claims were … Continue reading General Electric Company (Patent): IPO 20 Jan 2012
IPO This is the consolidation of two individual actions for the revocation of two GB patents held by Fieldturf, GB 2329910 and its divisional GB 2350843. Fieldturf applied to amend these two patents under s75 during the course of these actions. As a result of the applicants for revocation stating that they no longer wish … Continue reading Polytan Planungs-Und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen Mbh Co, Edel Grass BV and Fieldturf Holdings Inc (Patent) O/412/10: IPO 30 Nov 2010
IPO In a computer networked system for monitoring gaming machines and tables in a casino, information on player activity is sent to casino employees on portable handheld computers linked to the system allowing them to monitor play, identify the location of players and make awards of free games, goods or services. The contribution was assessed, … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/120/07: IPO 9 May 2007
IPO The comptroller declined to deal with references under sections 8 and 12 at the joint request of both parties. Judges: Mr P Hayward Citations: [2007] UKIntelP o01907, O/019/07, GB 0228421.4 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 8(7) 12(2) Intellectual Property Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.456534
IPO The application relates to a propulsion unit including electric and hydraulic systems alleged to work by using an alternator to maintain a battery at full charge whilst providing further electricity for auxiliary power. Objection was also raised that the invention lacked novelty and/or an inventive step on the basis of two documents. The HO … Continue reading David Duckett and Joan Duckett (Patent): IPO 12 Aug 2005
PO Patent Office – Ex Parte Decisions – As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Koito Manufacturing Co Ltd, it was found that Akinori Matsumoto and Takayuki Iwaki should also be mentioned as joint inventors in any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them … Continue reading Koito Manufacturing Co Ltd and Akinori Matsumoto and Takayuki Iwaki (Patent): IPO 31 Mar 2003
IPO The application relates to a method for facilitating retrieval of image data from a database and how a user interacts with the database. The user is interrogated as to attributes of the image data and the system selects images based on metadata already stored with the image, there being facility to update that metadata … Continue reading Hewlett-Packard Company (Patent): IPO 12 Jun 2006
Citations: [1998] UKIntelP o02198 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453129
Lilly appealed against a finding that an Actavis drug had not infringed its patents to the limited extent of holding that there would be indirect infringement in four jurisdictions, but they agreed with the Judge that there would be no direct infringement. The appeal raised the issue of the correct approach under UK law (and … Continue reading Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company: CA 25 Jun 2015
Appeal against refusal of patent – invention related to a scheme, rule, or method, for doing business and/or a mathematical method – financial derivatives. Judges: Mann J Citations: [2006] EWHC 1676 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263670
Patent validity – not an invention. Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Laddie Citations: [2004] EWHC 482 (Pat) Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(2)(d) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.194465
The judge urged that the Convention should be incorporated into English law without rephrasing difficult clauses: ‘it helps no-one for the Parliamentary draftsman to re-write matter in a treaty or convention (or EU directive for that matter) which is to be implemented in the United Kingdom. If the language of the basic document is obscure … Continue reading Beloit Technologies Inc and Another v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc and Another: ChD 12 May 1995
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not identify an optimal dosage regime. A pharmaceutical company, which had acquired the patent, conducted … Continue reading Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v ICOS Corporation and Another: SC 27 Mar 2019
Revocation proceedings were brought before the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The revocation proceedings were withdrawn, but the Comptroller decided to continue his examination. The patent owner sought to challenge this decision. Held: There is a difference between proceedings before the Comptroller conducted under the Manual of the Patent Office, and proceedings … Continue reading Regina (Ash and Lacy Building Products Ltd) v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks: ChD 1 Feb 2002
Judges: Laddie J Citations: [1997] EWHC 372 (Pat), [1998] RPC 31 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.420014
The issue raised on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether three products manufactured by Actavis would infringe a patent whose proprietor is Lilly, namely European Patent (UK) No 1 313 508, and its corresponding designations in France, Italy and Spain. Held: Eli Lilly’s appeal succeeded. The Actavis products directly infringed the respondent’s patents. The Court … Continue reading Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jul 2017
Held: The court must answer a relatively simple question of fact: was it obvious to the skilled but unimaginative addressee to make a product or carry out a process falling within the claim Lord Justice Moore-Bick Lord Justice Lewison And Lord Justice Kitchin [2012] EWCA Civ 1234, [2013] RPC 27 Bailii England and Wales Cited … Continue reading MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd: CA 10 Oct 2012
The company appealed against refusal of patentunder the provision restricting such for ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ Held: The matter was referred to the ECJ. Henry Carr QC [2013] EWHC 807 (Ch), [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2, BL O/316/12, [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2 Bailii Patents Act … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 17 Apr 2013
The question was what was meant by ‘application’ in section 2(3): the request, or the document. It was crucial, because if it meant the document it would have counted as prior art, and would have been novelty-destroying; but if it meant the request, it would not have done because the request had been withdrawn and … Continue reading Woolard, Re A Patent Application: PatC 12 Apr 2002
Appeal from refusal of patent Laddie J [2004] EWHC 482 (Patent) Bailii Patents Act 1977 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.194722
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor E.V. Offshore Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Matthew Gibson-Ford should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Jonathan Thursby and Shaun Peck in the published patent application for the invention and directed … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Jonathan Thursby, Shaun Peck and Matthew Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 12 Jun 2014
Patent – Decline to deal, Entitlement – These proceedings relate to the issue of entitlement and in particular a reference under sections 12 and 37 of the Patents Act 1977 in respect of GB2459912 and WO2009/136150. The matter appeared to have been resolved by agreement following mediation. However, there still appeared to be a number … Continue reading Neath and Neath v Neath: IPO 12 Sep 2013
AI created Invention is not Patentable The case appears to be about artificial intelligence and whether AI-based machines can make patentable inventions – correct processing of application Held: The appeal failed. On the face of the Form 7s he filed, Dr Thaler did not comply with either of the requirements laid down by section 13(2), … Continue reading Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs: CA 21 Sep 2021
. .
Request for declaration of non-infringement of and for revocation of patents.
Held: Even if provisions are not listed in s130(7), it is undesirable for provision in our domestic law which in fact do correspond to provisions in the EPC to be . .
The claimant appealed against refusal of registration for his patent application. . .
IPO Evidence, Revocation – The defendants in this case objected to the admissibility of the claimant’s evidence-in-reply on the grounds that it was not strictly in reply, and could have been filed at an earlier . .
One plaintiff was the exclusive licensee of a registered design. The defendant sold articles alleged to infringe the design right. The registered owner had a statutory right to sue for infringement. But the question was whether the licensee could . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
IPO In his decision dated 24 July 2000 the HO gave Mr Magill 6 weeks to indicate whether or not he wished to resist an order to assign the patent application to Intelligent Clothing Ltd.. In the absence of a response Mr Magill was ordered to assign the application within 6 weeks. The order does … Continue reading Central Research Laboratories Ltd v Intelligent Clothing Ltd and Alan Magill (Patent): IPO 29 Sep 2000
IPO Just before the parties were due to be heard in a dispute over ownership of an application under the Patent Co-operation Treaty, the issue was raised of the validity of an assignment which appeared to cover all rights to the inventive matter contained in the application. As this was a point of central importance … Continue reading Azam and Livesey (Patent): IPO 22 Dec 2010
IPO Spaclean made a reference to the comptroller that it was entitled to be granted patents for the invention forming the subject of PCT/GB2002/00725. After completion of the evidence rounds, communication from a director of Spaclean who furnished evidence on behalf of the company, ceased. A hearing date was appointed by the Hearing Officer but … Continue reading Spaclean Limited v Grunwell (Patent): IPO 24 Jun 2004
PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions IPO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions – The claimant requested that the comptroller decline to deal with a reference under section 12(2) on the grounds of the complexity of the issues. The defendant consented to the request, but on the grounds that there were substantially identical grounds before the … Continue reading The Thrombosis Research Institute and Trigen Limited v West Pharmaceutical Services Drug Delivery and Clinical Research Centre Limited (Formerly Danbiosyst) Or, In The Case of The Usa, Peter Watts (Patent): IPO 6 Feb 2002
Judges: Jacob J Citations: [2002] EWHC 2324 (Patents) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.178127
The claimants sought to amend their claim which had previously been on the basis of a joint ownership, to one of sole ownership. Held: The application for the amendment being made more han two years after the grant, the amendment could not be allowed. s.37(5) bars the making of a new claim out of time. … Continue reading Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others: CA 31 Jul 2006
The description in a patent application’s specification must be of an invention. Citations: Ind Summary 28-Nov-1994 Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(1) 72(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996 The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the … Continue reading Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc: CA 28 Nov 1994
ICO This decision concerned whether the patent in suit should be restored following a failure to pay the renewal fee. In December 2000 and January 2001respectively two patent applications were filed for the same invention – a British (GB) application and a European (EP) application, the latter designating amongst other countries, GB and claiming priority … Continue reading Orkli (UK) Limited (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2009
IPO Mr. Farr applied under section 37 of the Patents Act 1977 to be named proprietor/inventor of EP 1268313. The proprietors, Orbis, responded by requesting summary dismissal of Mr. Farr’s claim on the grounds that he had no reasonable chance of success and that the reference was made out of time under section 37(5) of … Continue reading Kenneth Farr; Orbis Corporation (Patent): IPO 11 Jun 2008
IPO The patent application relates to a golf putter having a measurement scale and sighting means to estimate the distance to the hole. The examiner had objected that new subject matter had been added contrary to section 76, that the invention lacked inventive step in the light of four prior specifications and that it was … Continue reading Hideaki Koiwai (Patent): IPO 31 Dec 2007
IPO In apparatus for electronic trading a spreadsheet application calculated a series of trading commands from incoming market data and stored them in a queue to be sent at predetermined intervals to an electronic trading system (ETS); since the commands might not be synchronised with market conditions by the time they were transmitted they were … Continue reading CFPH LLC (Patent): IPO 10 Aug 2007
It was known for casinos to issue their own identification cards for use by players of gaming machines, but the invention allowed information to be read from a pre-existing card such as a driver’s licence or credit card and used, without decrypting it, to identify whether the player had an account. The claims related to … Continue reading Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent): IPO 11 Jul 2007
As a result of an uncontested application filed under Section 13(1) by DNA Electronics Ltd, it was found that Leila Shepherd should be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip be prepared mentioning her as a joint inventor for the published patent application for … Continue reading DNA Electronics Ltd, Christofer Toumazou, Bhusana Premanode and Leila Shepherd (Patent): IPO 14 May 2007
IPO Excluded fields (refused) – In a gaming machine, different results were classified into sets producing the same outcome, all results producing the same outcome being in the same set; the results were numbered and stored in a memory with the outcomes; and a processor randomly selected one of the outcomes and one of the … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/077/07: IPO 15 Mar 2007
IPO Added subject matter, Excluded fields (refused) – The invention related to a trajectory-based game of chance for implementation on a video gaming machine. The claim related to a gaming machine but in the light of Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 it was agreed that the contribution was a data structure including a probability distribution … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/054/07: IPO 22 Feb 2007
IPO The invention relates to a computerised system for trading stocks, shares, currencies and the like. Offers of assets for sale and bids to buy were displayed on each trader’s workstation so that they were able to observe and participate in the market. Each bid or offer made could comprise shown and hidden portions, the … Continue reading CFPH, LLC (Patent): IPO 25 May 2004
It was common ground that one of the claimants (M) contacted one of the defendants (H) with the idea of using magnetic particles instead of electrostatic particles in Hs prior cockroach trapping technology. M also supplied samples of magnetic particles for H to test. These tests proved the concept. The hearing officer was not persuaded … Continue reading IDA Limited Et Al v University of Southampton Et Al (Patent): IPO 31 Mar 2004
Burden of proof, Entitlement, Inventorship, Jurisdiction, Orders – One of the co-applicants for the PCT application (Mr Khemka) referred questions of inventorship and entitlement on forty applications derived from the PCT application. There was no domestic GB application. The hearing officer found that he did not have jurisdiction under sections 8 and 37 (section 9 … Continue reading Sheel Khemka v Nana-Akoto Osei (Patent): IPO 19 Sep 2003
When Hartington Conway bought Xtralite Industrial Rooflights Limited (XIRL), the sale agreement included rights to the patent applications in suit which had been applied for by XIRL. These patents related to a glazing system known as the Xlok which was invented by Mr Robert Tweedy who was a Director of XIRL but also Managing Director … Continue reading Xtralite Limited v Hartington Conway Limited (Patent): IPO 21 Feb 2003
The application was concerned with a method of creating items according to a schedule based on the location to which the items were to be transported. The examiner had not searched the application because in his view it related to a method of doing business. A report under s18(3) had been issued to the effect … Continue reading Ford Motor Company (Patent): IPO 5 Dec 2002
Held that BT were the rightful owners of the US and Canadian applications. Mr Yashap was ordered to execute the necessary documents (Messrs Wyatt and Percival already having signed); failing that, BT were authorised to sign on his behalf. Costs awarded against Mr Kashyap, but not Messrs Wyatt and Percival. Cannings’ United States Application [1992] … Continue reading British Telecommunications Plc v Wyatt, Percival and Kashyap (Patent): IPO 17 Jul 2002
IPO The claims related to an apparatus for gaming which was networked to a host computer and allocated players to levels each with an associated amount beyond which a player would be given an award. The nearest prior art was the applicant’s published application which lay in the section 2(3) field and had been refused … Continue reading Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent): IPO 18 Sep 2006
ICO The application related to a networked gaming system which changed the game content and behaviour based on recorded data about players, thus allowing a casino operator to tailor the experience to an individual. Using the approach in CFPH LLP’s Appn [2005] EWHC 1589, it was not disputed that any advance lay in the feedback … Continue reading Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent): IPO 3 May 2006
IPO In section 27 opposition proceedings, the opponent (Laird Security Hardware Limited) argued that the application to amend should be refused on the grounds that it contravenes section 76 in that it introduces additional matter; that it contravenes section 14 in that the claims as amended are not clear; and that it does not rectify … Continue reading Archibald Kenrick Sons Limited v Laird Security Hardware Limited: IPO 15 Mar 2006
IPO Crompton Lighting applied to revoke GB2059196B on the grounds that it was not new and did not involve an inventive step. The proprietor, Emergi-Lite Safety Systems, filed a counter-statement, but the two parties reached a settlement before any evidence was filed. Following the settlement, the applicant sought leave to withdraw from the revocation proceedings. … Continue reading Crompton Lighting Ltd v Emergi-Lite Safety Systems Ltd (Patent): IPO 18 May 2000
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Ayumu Taniguchi and Juni-ichi Tanabe, it was found that Ayumu Taniguchi and Juni-ichi Tanabe should be mentioned as a joint inventors in the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as a joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent … Continue reading Ayumu Taniguchi Juni-Ichi Tanabe v Toyo Kohan Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 27 Jan 2000
Judges: Floyd J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat), [2012] RPC 13 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Citing: Appeal from – Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Limited (Patent) IPO 23-Dec-2010 IPO The invention concerned a system for monitoring an electronic communication on the internet such as a chat room, e.g. being used by a … Continue reading Re Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Ltd: PatC 26 Oct 2011
The claimant sought statutory compensation, having whilst employee of the defendant, created a pump which came to widely used in the testing of diabetic status. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), [2014] RPC 29, [2014] WLR(D) 242 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Patents Act 1977 41(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: PatC 23 May 2014
Appeal against refusal to admit supplementary statement of case. The claimant had, while employed by the defendant created a pump which came to be widely used in the management of diabetes. He was seeking recompense for his contribution. Judges: Mann J Citations: [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch), [2010] RPC 11, [2010] Bus LR 761, (2010) 33(2) … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: ChD 3 Dec 2009
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were concerned with biotechnology, and in particular the production of human antibodies using transgenic mice. By the priority date, the potential uses … Continue reading Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd: SC 24 Jun 2020
The court was asked: ‘When a claim defines an invention partly by reference to excluded subject-matter e.g. a business method, how do you search the prior art?’ The company appealed against rejection of its request for a patent. Judges: Peter Prescott QC Citations: [2008] EWHC 568 (Pat), GB 0311200 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 … Continue reading In re IGT / Acres Gaming Inc: PatC 19 Mar 2008
The claimant had asserted a joint authorship of the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ written in the sixties. The defendant appealed saying that the claim had been brought too late, and that the finding ignored practice in the music industry. The copyright in the song had already been assigned by the authors before the … Continue reading Brooker and Another v Fisher: CA 4 Apr 2008
Proceedings had been brought by a third party in which the patent had been revoked. The Defendant in the first proceedings now sought release from an enquiry as to damages after being found, before the revocation, to have infringed the patent. Held: (Lord Justice Neuberger dissenting) The defendant was bound by the order for an … Continue reading Coflexip S A and Another v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd and others: CA 27 Feb 2004
The appellant challenged dismissal of its claim for patent infringement. The judge had held that the design was obvious, involving essentially only the collocation of two known features. Held: Collocation was no more than a species of obviousness, and the test remained to be performed as to whether the bringing together of the two ideas, … Continue reading SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another: CA 11 Jul 2002
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. Thorley submitted that if a product had been made available to … Continue reading PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others: ChD 25 Nov 1994
IPO The two applications relate to a composition for bone health maintenance and a composition for use during lactation, respectively.Prior to considering the inventiveness of the claims of these two applications, the hearing officer addressed the impact of the decision in Human Genome Sciences v Eli Lilly on the relative effects of the jurisprudence of … Continue reading Ajit Lalvani, Kartar Singh Lalvani Robert Taylor (Patent): IPO 23 May 2013
The rejection of an opposition claim to a European Patent by the European Patents Office, did not create an estoppel for an English Court looking at a similar issue. Judges: Roch, Aldous LJJ Citations: Times 03-Apr-1998, [1998] 2 All ER 960, [1998] EWCA Civ 509 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 72 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Buehler Ag v Chronos Richardson Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1998
PO Designs – Designs/Design Right Decisions Judges: Mr P Hayward Citations: O/129/04 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – NIC Instruments Limited v P W Allen And Company Limited PO 29-Jan-2004 PO Designs – Designs/Design Right Decisions . . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be … Continue reading NIC Instruments Limited v P W Allen And Company Limited: PO 11 May 2004
In a claim for infringement of a patent, where variations on a patent were to be considered, the court should look to the three tests set down in Improver (‘the Protocal questions’), and the claim should be interpreted in a purposive and contextual way. The court should ask if the variation was material, would the … Continue reading Wheatley, Bortec Limited v Drillsafe Limited, Force Group Services Plc, Foster, Foster, Carter, Davies: CA 25 Jul 2000
A patent application was made for a system for the automatic recognition of ships by comparison of a digital image with data stored in a computer database. Held: The court gave a wider meaning to the phrase ‘mental act’ Citations: [1993] RPC 427 Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1 Cited by: Cited – Aerotel Ltd v … Continue reading Raytheon’s Application: 1993
Hoover appealed a finding that Dyson’s patent was valid and infringed. They asserted the patent was not novel in the light of a US patent, and even so was obvious. One test was whether an application of the claimed patent would inevitably infringe the previous patent. Both parties had prepared models from the earlier patent. … Continue reading Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited: CA 4 Oct 2001
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Patents Judges: Mrs S Williams Citations: GB 2323411, O/120/02 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 13(1) Intellectual Property Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.177152
The court was asked to interpret the application of section 40 of the 1977 Act. Held: The benefit of the section was to be taken by the actual inventor, and did not extend to those who had merely contributed. In calculating the benefit, the phrase ‘outstanding benefit’ the court should look for ‘something special’ or … Continue reading Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare Ltd: PatC 11 Feb 2009
The claimant professor had invented a pump mechanism which came to be used by his employers for the sale of pumps used to manage diabetic testing. He appealed against refusal of statutory compensation. Judges: Patten, Briggs, Sales LJJ Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 2, [2017] WLR(D) 32, [2017] Bus LR 883, [2017] RPC 15 Links: Bailii, … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: CA 18 Jan 2017
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Ayumu Taniguchi, and Juni-ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige and Masao Komai, it was found that Ayumu Taniguchi, and Juni-ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige and Masao Komai should be mentioned as a joint inventors in the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them … Continue reading Ayumu Taniguchi, Juni-Ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige Masao Komai v Toyo Kohan Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 27 Jan 2000
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002
Appeal from a decision rejecting a Patent Application in the name of Fujitsu Ltd. His grounds for rejection were that the subject matter of the application was not an invention for the purposes of the 1977 Act in that it was excluded as a result of the provisions of s. 1(1)(d) and 1(2)(d) as being … Continue reading Fujitsu Ltd, Re Patent Application No. 920495 2: PatC 24 May 1996
The claimant said that the defendant had, through its members visiting their premises, breached the licence under which they entered, by taking photographs and distributing them on the internet, and in so doing also infringing the performance rights of the claimant. Held: On breach of confidence, the parties had an arguable cases on each side, … Continue reading Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (T/A Amazing Animals) and Another v Captive Animals Protection Society: ChD 20 May 2016
Dispute as to entitlement to three Patents, and whether it should be heard in the IPO or the High Court. Mann J [2016] EWHC 3124 (Pat) Bailii Patents Act 1977 37 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572017
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that the value of any one item did not exceed the stated limit. The claimants … Continue reading Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd: HL 16 May 2007
The original inventor obtained a patent for a brake fluid protection system. A loan was raised against the patent, assigning also the future developments of the idea. The loan was called in, and then assigned to the defenders, who took the idea forward obtaining further patents. The pursuer asserted infringement. Held: The loan transferred all … Continue reading Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Limited: HL 5 Feb 2004
These proceedings raise, for the first time in the courts of the United Kingdom, the question how the concepts of sufficiency and infringement are to be applied to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound. Four issues arose: (i) the construction of the claims (in particular, Claim 3 as … Continue reading Warner-Lambert Company Llc v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) and Another: SC 14 Nov 2018
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002
