Click the case name for better results:

IGT (Patent) O/140/13: IPO 27 Mar 2013

IPO The application concerns game playing services in game machines, such as slot machines or video poker games. The thrust of the application is to enable game patrons to recover left-amounts which may arise from transactions involving different currencies. This is facilitated by software in the game machine’s logic modules. These left-over amounts can be … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/140/13: IPO 27 Mar 2013

Pioneer Electronics Capital Inc; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc (Together Trading As Discovision Associates) v Warner Music Manufacturing Europe Gmbh and Warner Music UK Limited: CA 28 Nov 1996

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

Macrossan v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks 2005: ChD 3 Apr 2006

The court upheld the rejection of a patent application with regard to a computer program. Judges: Mann J Citations: [2006] EWHC 705 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 77 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Blacklight Power Inc v The Comptroller-General of Patents PatC 18-Nov-2008 The applicant appealed against the refusal of … Continue reading Macrossan v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks 2005: ChD 3 Apr 2006

Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks: PatC 4 Sep 2013

Peter Prescott QC J set out the four steps to be taken: ‘The approach is in four steps: ‘(1) properly construe the claim; (2) identify the actual contribution; (3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter; (4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.’ (see Aerotel at … Continue reading Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks: PatC 4 Sep 2013

Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jul 2017

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

Caleb Suresh Motupalli (Patent) O/401/13: IPO 4 Oct 2013

The application relates to ‘System and method for super-augmenting a persona to manifest a pan-environment super-cyborg for global governance’. The Hearing Officer considered the application to lack both industrial application and sufficiency and subsequently refused the application. Mrs C L Davies [2013] UKIntelP o40113, GB1213494.6 Bailii Patents Act 1977 1(1)(c) 1493) Intellectual Property Updated: 23 … Continue reading Caleb Suresh Motupalli (Patent) O/401/13: IPO 4 Oct 2013

Acts

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

Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: ChD 3 Dec 2009

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

Kelly and Another v GE Healthcare Ltd: PatC 11 Feb 2009

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

Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: SC 23 Oct 2019

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

Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: CA 17 Jun 2015

Renewed application for leave to appeal against rejection of employee’s invention compensation claim. Floyd LJ [2015] EWCA Civ 787 Bailii Patents Act 1977 40 41 England and Wales Citing: At Chd (1) – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others ChD 3-Dec-2009 Appeal against refusal to admit supplementary statement of case. The claimant had, while employed … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: CA 17 Jun 2015

Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties. Held: The declaration was refused. There was no explicit provision in copyright law for a declaration of non-infringement as was available … Continue reading Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another: ChD 16 Dec 2005

Thomas R Cann (Patent): IPO 17 Oct 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

Mars UK Limited (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2007

IPO The application relates to a foodstuff which has specific macronutrient content parameters, the macronutrients in question being protein, fat and carbohydrate, when used in a method of increasing the acceptance and enjoyment of the foodstuff to a cat. The hearing officer found independent claims 1 and 6 to be lacking in clarity, with it … Continue reading Mars UK Limited (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2007

Compurants Ltd (Patent) O/187/12: IPO 4 May 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

BPB Limited, O’Keefe, Biguenet, Smith and Chotard (Patent): IPO 10 May 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by BPB Limited. As a result, it was found that Agnes Smith and Thierry Chotard should be mentioned as joint inventors in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention along with the currently named inventors, Samantha O’Keefe and Cedric Biguenet. It was also directed that an … Continue reading BPB Limited, O’Keefe, Biguenet, Smith and Chotard (Patent): IPO 10 May 2010

Strix Ltd and Otter Controls Ltd (Patent): IPO 2 Jan 2009

IPO The opponent opposed the patentee’s request under section 27 of the Patents Act 1977 for amendment of the patent, arguing, inter alia, that the patentee had delayed excessively before bringing the request to amend. The patentee sought the striking out of this ground following the amendment to the Patents Act which required the Comptroller … Continue reading Strix Ltd and Otter Controls Ltd (Patent): IPO 2 Jan 2009

World Properties Inc, Sankar K Paul, Luis D Borges and Allen F Horn Iii, Murali Sethumadhavan, Richard T Traskos and Michael E St Lawrence (Patent): IPO 7 Jul 2008

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Sankar K. Paul, Luis D. Borges and Allen F. Horn III, originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Sankar K. Paul, Luis D. … Continue reading World Properties Inc, Sankar K Paul, Luis D Borges and Allen F Horn Iii, Murali Sethumadhavan, Richard T Traskos and Michael E St Lawrence (Patent): IPO 7 Jul 2008

Komatsu Ltd (Patent) O/185/08: 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/185/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008

Komatsu Ltd (Patent) O/184/08: 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/184/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008

Blacklight Power Inc (Patent): IPO 17 Apr 2008

The applications relate respectively to a plasma reactor and a laser, both dependent for their operation on a ‘new hydrogen species’. The new hydrogen species involves the electron (the hydrogen atom has one electron) existing in a lower energy state than the lowest possible energy state recognised in standard physics. This arrangement was described in … Continue reading Blacklight Power Inc (Patent): IPO 17 Apr 2008

Everest Software Inc (Patent): IPO 18 Jan 2008

Excluded fields (refused) – The application relates to apparatus and a method for processing payments between a business software system and a payment processor. More specifically it provides an intermediate payment processor that interfaces between the business system software and the payment processors and permits a business software system to be upgraded to support additional … Continue reading Everest Software Inc (Patent): IPO 18 Jan 2008

Symbian Ltd (Patent): IPO 20 Aug 2007

IPO The application relates to a method of enabling an application running on an operating system on a portable computing device to access files stored on removable storage medium. Memory on different devices is typically managed according to different directory structures. In practice, this means that a file request from a device running on one … Continue reading Symbian Ltd (Patent): IPO 20 Aug 2007

IGT (Patent) O/184/07: IPO 4 Jul 2007

IPO All three applications (which were unrelated) related to ways of determining the awards and bonuses to be paid to players of gaming machines, and were refused. Applying the four-step Aerotel/Macrossan test in the light of the recent judgments in Oneida Indian Nation and IGT( [2007] EWHC 0954, 1341) the hearing officer held that, irrespective … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/184/07: IPO 4 Jul 2007

IGT (Patent) O/097/07: IPO 5 Apr 2007

IPO This application relates to an electronic gaming machine such as a ‘slot machine’ wherein players begin the game by pulling an arm or pushing a button which in turn rotates a series of reels or an equivalent video representation thereof, if when the reels stop, a winning arrangement of symbols is displayed, the player … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/097/07: IPO 5 Apr 2007

IGT (Patent) O/054/07: IPO 22 Feb 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

Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited (Patent): IPO 14 Nov 2003

IPO The Hearing Officer found that the proprietor, represented by the General Manager (the Directing Mind), had effectively taken reasonable care to see that the sixteenth year renewal fee was paid by issuing standing instructions that renewal fees should be paid automatically on any overseas patent which was licenced, even if its Japanese parent patent … Continue reading Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited (Patent): IPO 14 Nov 2003

Sheel Khemka v Nana-Akoto Osei (Patent): IPO 19 Sep 2003

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

Ford Motor Company (Patent): IPO 5 Dec 2002

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

Radiuscrown Limited v Ash Lacey Building Products Limited (Patent): IPO 7 Feb 2002

Application for revocation of patent – Patents – Inter Partes Decisions Judges: Mr P Hayward Citations: O/060/02, GB2240559, [2002] UKIntelP o06002 Links: PO, PO, Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 72 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: See Also – Radiuscrown Limited v Ash Lacey Building Products Limited (Patent) IPO 4-Apr-2002 IPO Costs, Revocation, Withdrawal – … Continue reading Radiuscrown Limited v Ash Lacey Building Products Limited (Patent): IPO 7 Feb 2002

Micron Europe Limited (Patent): IPO 20 Sep 2006

IPO Excluded fields (allowed) – The applications relate to the use of parallel processing in active memory applications. Following the CFPH approach, the Hearing Officer was able to identify an advance in the art that lay outside the description of an invention in the sense of Article 52 of the EPC. However, he could find … Continue reading Micron Europe Limited (Patent): IPO 20 Sep 2006

Baker Hughes Incorporated v Halliburton Energy Services Inc (Patent): IPO 2 Jan 2001

IPO The registered proprietor sought to have a late-filed statutory declaration admitted in evidence in support of its applications for amendment and correction. In proceedings which had been running some time, the HO decided that the proprietor had not discharged the onus on it to demonstrate that the nature of the fresh evidence and the … Continue reading Baker Hughes Incorporated v Halliburton Energy Services Inc (Patent): IPO 2 Jan 2001

Beertech UK Limited, Jolley, Comerford and Patel (Patent): IPO 26 Nov 2008

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Beertech UK Limited originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007. An uncontested application was also filed by Beertech UK Limited under section 13(3). It was found that Narendra Patel should … Continue reading Beertech UK Limited, Jolley, Comerford and Patel (Patent): IPO 26 Nov 2008

Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another: CA 31 Jan 2008

The validity of a patent was challenged at the same time in both UK and European courts. Mummery LJ discussed the inherent consequences of a race between the jurisdictions: ‘the possibility of the duplication of proceedings contesting the validity of a patent granted by the EPO is inherent in the system established by the Convention. … Continue reading Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another: CA 31 Jan 2008

Coflexip S A and Another v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd and others: CA 27 Feb 2004

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

Kaisha v Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited: PC 30 Apr 1997

(Hong Kong) The claimants complained of the sale by the defendants of refilled cartridges for use with their printers. Held: The spare cartridge manufacturer’s appeal failed: ‘repair is by definition something which does not amount to the manufacture of the patented article, it is not an infringement of the monopoly conferred by the patent. It … Continue reading Kaisha v Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited: PC 30 Apr 1997

Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited: CA 4 Oct 2001

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

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 molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the antigens of a hepatitis virus was patented with a priority date of … Continue reading Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc: HL 31 Oct 1996

Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: CA 18 Jan 2017

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

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

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

Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Limited: HL 5 Feb 2004

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

Warner-Lambert Company Llc v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) and Another: SC 14 Nov 2018

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

Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another: PatC 31 Mar 2010

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

Dynex Technologies, Inc, Bunce, Fusellier and Gaillard (Patent): IPO 26 Jun 2014

IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by Patrick Gaillard under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Patrick Gaillard should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Adrian Bunce and Andrew Fusellier in the published patent application and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him … Continue reading Dynex Technologies, Inc, Bunce, Fusellier and Gaillard (Patent): IPO 26 Jun 2014

Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited: CA 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

Arvia Technology Limited, Edward P L Roberts, Nigel Willis Brown and Syed N Hussain (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2013

IPO An uncontested application was filed by the patent agents of the proprietor Arvia Technology Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Syed Hussain should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Edward P L Roberts and Nigel Willis Brown in the published patent application … Continue reading Arvia Technology Limited, Edward P L Roberts, Nigel Willis Brown and Syed N Hussain (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2013

Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011

The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. The claimant asserted that their claim was an intellectual property claim, allowing section 72 … Continue reading Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011