A ferry plied its way between Dublin and Holyhead, coming into English territorial waters three or four times a day, and for up to three hours on each occasion. The claimants asserted that the construction of the hull infringed its patent. Held: The Act specifically excluded liability where an infringing ship or other item came … Continue reading Stena Rederi Aktiebolag and Another v Irish Ferries Ltd: CA 6 Feb 2003
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
The product of a process remained such despite application of a further process; There had been no loss of identity. Citations: Times 10-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1059 Statutes: Patents Act 1977 60(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140926
IPO The application related to a device for generating electricity by pumping water to an impeller attached to a generator. The hearing officer upheld the examiner’s objection that the invention operated in a manner contrary to well-established physical laws and was therefore neither capable of industrial application nor sufficiently disclosed. Citations: [2008] UKIntelP o26608 Links: … Continue reading Norman Paterson and Nicholas Jones (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2008
IPO The application related to a double-layered sintered sliding member used for a connecting device, such as a thrust bearing, of a construction machine. The invention was characterized by compositional features of the alloy used. The hearing officer held that the characterization by means of percentage components of constituents present in a martensite phase was … Continue reading Komatsu Ltd (Patent) O/186/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008
IPO The application related to a double-layered sintered sliding member used for a connecting device, such as a thrust bearing, of a construction machine. The invention was characterized by compositional features of the alloy used. The hearing officer held that the characterization by means of percentage components of constituents present in a martensite phase was … Continue reading Komatsu Ltd (Patent) O/188/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008
IPO The application related to a double-layered sintered sliding member used for a connecting device, such as a thrust bearing, of a construction machine. The invention was characterized by compositional features of the alloy used. The hearing officer held that the characterization by means of percentage components of constituents present in a martensite phase was … Continue reading Komatsu Ltd (Patent) O/183/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008
IPO The invention related to a gaming apparatus and method in which 2D image data was converted into a 3D video image and displayed on a non-planar 3D screen. The examiner had objected that the contribution of the invention was excluded under the above categories, but (although it was not apparent from the specification as … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/149/08: IPO 23 May 2008
IPO Patent – In section 27 opposition proceedings, the opponent (Laird Security Hardware Limited) sought to file a supplementary statement, which was opposed by the applicant for amendment (Archibald Kenrick and Sons Limited) who requested that the opposition to amendment be struck out. It was held that admission of the supplementary statement would not materially … Continue reading Archibald Kenrick Sons v Laird Security Hardware Limited: IPO 13 Jun 2005
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
Allegation of patent infringement by offering coffee capsules compatible with claimant’s Nespresso Machines. Cross challenge that patent claim invalid for insufficiency. Held: Patent invalid, and no infringement. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2013] EWHC 923 (Pat) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 60 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.472872
The claimant appealed from refusal of statutory compensation under the 1977 Act. He had invented a form of pump which was used by his employers, the respondents in the management of diabetes management. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the correct approach to the application of section 40 and the one that does least violence to its … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: SC 23 Oct 2019
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
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had retrospectively amended it so as to remove with effect from the date of grant … Continue reading Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd: SC 3 Jul 2013
The claimant said that the defendant had infringed its patents regarding containers for the transport of liquids in bulk. The patent provided for a steel cage surrounding a large bottle. The defendant supplied refurbished or replacement bottles. The patent was attacked for obviousness. Held: The claim failed. The court held, inter alia, as to whether … Continue reading Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another: PatC 31 Mar 2010
IPO An uncontested application was filed by the patent agents of the proprietor Zytronic Displays Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Stephen Ormston and Philip Rudland should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Andrew Morrison in the published patent application and granted patent … Continue reading Zytronic Displays Limited, Morrison, Ormston and Rudland (Patent): IPO 30 Dec 2014
The Secretary of State for Defence provides the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) with a list of technologies that could be considered prejudicial to national security or public safety. If the IPO receives a patent application for an invention employing any of the technology on the list it can issue directions under the Patents Act 1977 … Continue reading Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2011
IPO PCT application WO 2009/128847 entitled ‘Apparatus for playing wagering games’ entered the UK national phase as patent application GB1018115.4. This invention allows a player to play a wagering game at a machine in the casino using funds in a remote account. Specifically, it allows one or more players to use syndicate funds or, alternatively, … Continue reading WMS Gaming Inc (Patent): IPO 24 Jun 2013
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the first defendant had been found dishonest through non-disclosure, and that section 21 … Continue reading DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3): CA 28 Jul 2003
IPO Entitlement – As a result of an uncontested reference filed under section 8(1) by Bartlett Engineering (South Wales) Limited, it was found that patent application number GB 0208639.5 should proceed in the . .
Appeal from refusal of patent as a method for doing business and a program for a computer, as such. . .
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 . .
The parties disputed whether there had been an infringement of the claimant’s patent in respect for ‘intermediate bulk containers’ designed for the safe transport of liquids in bulk. They were a cage holding a plastic bottle. The defendant had a . .
. .
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
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 for a substance which had been produced naturally before the application of the process was invalid. The patent was invalidated after the discovery that the effect was produced naturally from an acid metabolite. Patent infringement does not require that one should be aware that one is infringing: ‘whether or not a person is … Continue reading Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another v H N Norton and Co Ltd; Same v Penn Etc: HL 26 Oct 1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed. Held: A mortgagee whose loan is used to repay another charged debt is subrogated to that debt, … Continue reading Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others: CA 10 Apr 1995
The claimant said that the defendants imported model airplanes infringing the claimant’s patents, and registered community designs. The defendant responded that the patents were invalid. Held: Some but not all of the patent claims were valid, and the goods were infringing. Judges: Hacon HHJ Citations: [2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 … Continue reading William Mark Corporation and Another v Gift House International Ltd: IPEC 22 Aug 2014
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 is concerned with a computer-implemented system and method for supply chain planning in which the user is provided with a visual representation of the supply chain network and a high level plan display. These are interactive and the user can switch between them – for example to determine the effect of a … Continue reading I2 Technologies US, Inc (Patent): IPO 7 Dec 2010
IPO The invention provided, in a brokerage system which allowed a user to obtain digital content from third party providers via a networked system, a means to store information about the functionality and capability of one or more devices held by the user and supply the information to the provider so that the provider could … Continue reading ATT Knowledge Ventures, LP (Patent): IPO 2 Jul 2008
IPO The claims relate to an electronic payment method and the Claimant alleged that they are excluded from patentability as not being an invention, are not novel, and lack an inventive step. The hearing officer found that the claims were both novel and inventive but found that all the claims of the patent are excluded … Continue reading Ingenico (UK) Limited and Pendawell 2007 Limited (Patent): IPO 6 Nov 2007
IPO Industrial application – The application relates to an arrangement for producing power. The Hearing office held that (i) the invention was not capable of industrial application because its alleged mode of operation was contrary to well-established physical laws, and (ii) that the specification was not sufficient to enable the skilled man to produce a … Continue reading Peter Joseph Crowley (Patent): IPO 1 Aug 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
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 The two applications are concerned with networked interactive wagering on the outcomes of events, with particular emphasis on reducing processing delays to a minimum so that in circumstances where prices are changing continuously, a client is provided with the most up-to-date information before placing a bet. In refusing the application, the hearing officer found … Continue reading CFPH LLC (Patent): IPO 14 Dec 2004
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
IPO In early January 2002, Bruker SA assigned the patent in suit to Hightechcare SA. The patent was to be paid for in instalments ending on 31st December 2003, so Bruker insisted on keeping the files until that date. The assignment contained no arrangements as to who should renew the patent in the period until … Continue reading Bruker Sa (Patent): IPO 21 Jul 2006
The applicant failed to respond to an examination report under section 18(3) of the Act, by the final date specified in the report for reply. He did not communicate with the Office at all until a letter was sent to him some 18 months after the final date for reply warning that the end of … Continue reading Samuel Abekah-Mensah (Patent): IPO 1 Feb 2006
Robinson Willey Limiteds application to amend GB 2305499 in the light of three items of Japanese prior art was opposed by Baxi Heating Limited. No explicit reasons were given for the proposed amendments to the claims other than they sought to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The opponents grounds of opposition were … Continue reading Baxi Heating Limited and Robinson Willey Limited (Patent): IPO 10 Aug 2004
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 parties disputed the patentability of an anti-depressant drug Citalopram (Prozac). Held: the claims were invalid for insufficiency. Judges: Kitchin J Citations: [2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat), [2007] RPC 729 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1 2 Citing: Applied – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996 The claim patented sought to protect a genetic … Continue reading Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs): PatC 27 Jun 2007
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice … Continue reading Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006
When the court looked at whether the repair of a patented article was an infringement, the court would better achieve its required answer by asking whether the works amounted to a manufacture of the patented article, rather than a repair. The concept of implied licence was now to be disregarded. The acts in this case … Continue reading United Wire Limited v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Limited; Howlett etc: CA 27 Jul 1999
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
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other injunctive relief. Held: The defendant could not begin arrangements to take advantage of the expiry of the … Continue reading Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd: PatC 5 Apr 2001
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 claimants had a patent specifying a means of gambling over computers connected at a distance. They brought infringement proceedings against the respondent, who defended by asserting that since the host computer was located abroad it did not infringe, claiming in aid the provisions which referred to the making of a supply within the UK. … Continue reading Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd and Another v William Hill Organization Ltd: PatC 15 Mar 2002
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
IPO Genentech Inc, the proprietors of Patent Number EP(UK) 1 187 632 B1, entitled ‘Treatment with Anti-ErbB2 Antibodies’, granted on 3 December 2008, gave notice on 16 January 2014 of an offer to surrender this patent under Section 29 of the Act. At this time, the patent was also the subject of revocation proceedings in … Continue reading Genentech Inc (Patent): IPO 11 Aug 2014
IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Funky Moves Ltd under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Thomas David Binnie should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Ralf Kinnert in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and … Continue reading Funky Moves Ltd, Kinnert and Binnie (Patent): IPO 5 Jun 2014
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 Shaun Peck and Chris Jay should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Jonathan Thursby in the published patent application for the invention and directed that … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Thursby, Peck and Jay (Patent): IPO 10 Jun 2014
The plaintiffs had applied for a product licence for a patented drug. To support its application, it supplied the authority with confidential information which the authority now sought to make use of the confidential information when considering later applications for licences for similar products. Held: The authority had a duty of public safety, and to … Continue reading In Re Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd: HL 9 Feb 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. Held: Section 60(1) of the 1977 Act, described … Continue reading Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited: CA 1989
A computer program modelling a crystal structure is not patentable; it was not a hardware function, and software is not capable of protection under Patents law. Aldous LJ repeated his concern at the so called ‘technical contribution test’ for patentability: ‘I, like Nicholls LJ [in Gale], have difficulty in identifying clearly the boundary line between … Continue reading In Re Patent Application No 9204959 by Fujitsu Ltd: CA 14 Mar 1997
The claimants said that the defendant had misused confidential information sent to him to found an application for a patent, claiming wrongly to have been its inventor. The claimant appealed a refusal by the court to allow amendments to the . .
When deciding upon the terms upon which licenses for the use of patented drugs are to be granted, a member state must not take into account issues other than those properly involved in such decisions. Protection of existing licences were not a . .
The patentees had two patents relating to parts of oil rigs, coming into play to clean drill bits of cuttings on retraction. The defendants sold re-conditioned frames for this process.
Held: Where the apparent exercise of a right of repair . .
