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 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  EWHC 807 (Ch),  3 CMLR 14,  RPC 2, BL O/316/12,  3 CMLR 14,  RPC 2 Bailii Patents Act … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 17 Apr 2013
The applicant sought patents for systems of document management. The applications had been rejected as being for computer programs as such. Held: The exclusion from protection created by the section was to be construed narrowly. In the absence of non-mental limitations, the product should not be excluded. Floyd J  EWHC 649 (Pat), Times 03-Jun-2008, … Continue reading Kapur v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks: PatC 10 Apr 2008
IPO The invention related to a device for controlling incontinence using a bladder pressure sensor and a muscle stimulator. A previous decision relating to this case was appealed by the applicant. The subsequent judgment required the applicant to file suitable amendments to address clarity and support. The application was remitted back to the examiner for … Continue reading Dr Harry Nduka (Patent)O/132/14: IPO 20 Mar 2014
IPO The invention is concerned with calibrating sleep clocks from fast clocks in wireless network apparatus, such as mobile telephones. Sleep clocks are low frequency clocks which run while devices are in an energy saving sleep mode; they are prone to frequency drift. Fast clocks are high frequency clocks which run when devices are awake, … Continue reading Renesas Mobile Corporation (Patent): IPO 20 Dec 2013
IPO The invention related to a method of allowing a user to interact with a 3D geoscience object displayed on a computer display. The user identifies a feature of interest in the object and is then able to manipulate the image using two or more control points in 3D space, e.g. to rotate, translate or … Continue reading Logined BV (Patent): IPO 20 Dec 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Zymogenetics, Inc. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Rolf E. Kuestner should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Cindy A. Sprecher, L. Joseph Kuijper, Maria M. Dasovich, J. Francis Grant, Angela K. Hammond, E. Julia Novak, Jane … Continue reading Zymogenetics, Inc, Cindy A Sprecher, L Joseph Kuijper, Maria M Dasovich, J Francis Grant, Angela K Hammond, E Julia Novak, Jane A Gross, R Stacey Dillon and Rolf E Kuestner (Patent): IPO 19 Jun 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Medimmune Vaccines, Inc. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that both John Michael Berry and Weldong Cui should be mentioned as joint inventors in relation to the granted EP (UK) patent and directed that an … Continue reading Medimmune Vaccines, Inc, Robert George Trager, George Kemble, Richard M Schwartz, Harshvardhan Mehta, Vu Truong-Le, Zhongying Chen, A Alfred Pan, Eric Tsao, Kathy Chiaoyin Wang, Luisa Yee, Palani Balu, John Michael Berry and Weldong Cui: IPO 4 Nov 2013
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
Industrial application – The invention related to a series of bags connected to form a vertical conveyer which rotates over rollers. Bags on the descending side of the conveyer are filled with water, causing the conveyer to rotate as the water-filled bags fall under gravity. Bags on the ascending side of the conveyer are empty, … Continue reading Peter Joseph Crowley (Patent): IPO 27 Sep 2013
An uncontested application was filed by Nike International Ltd. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Bruce J. Kilgore and Michael R. Friton should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Eric P. Avar and James A. Grove in the granted patent for the invention and … Continue reading Nike International Ltd, Avar, Grove, Kilgore and Friton (Patent): IPO 2 Aug 2013
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Philippe Bencteux under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Steevy Cordette should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Philippe Bencteux in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint … Continue reading Philippe Bencteux and Steevy Cordette (Patent): IPO 9 Sep 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  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
Patent application GB 1009825.9 relates to electrochemical protection of steel in reinforced concrete exposed to the air. The applicants had been unable to satisfy the examiner that the claimed invention was novel and that amendments made to the application had not added matter. Following a hearing at which the applicants provided more information on the … Continue reading Gareth Glass, Adrian Roberts and Nigel Davison (Patent): IPO 20 Aug 2013
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
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
IPO The invention relates to a data synchronization protocol, in which synchronization messages to be exchanged between a client and server comprise separate sync modes (e.g. fast, slow, reset) associated with different dataclasses of data to be synchronized. The sync modes may be provided in parallel and the data may be updated in parallel. This … Continue reading Apple Inc (Patent): IPO 6 Jun 2013
IPO This is a decision on costs following a case management conference at which a reasoned oral decision was given refusing a request by the defendant for postponement of the substantive hearing. Costs in respect of the case management conference (which took place in two short sessions on consecutive days) were awarded to the claimant. … Continue reading Coupling Technology Limited and Coupling Solutions Llc (Patent): IPO 5 Jun 2013
IPO The application relates to a method of generating a list of cancer drug treatment options based on the status of molecular markers derived from a sample of a tumor in a patient. It is claimed as a method of diagnosing cancer which comprises the steps of interrogating a computer-implemented database and producing a list … Continue reading The Rocket Science Group, Llc (Patent): IPO 7 Jun 2013
IPO The application relates to a method and apparatus for determining the competency of human language interpreters. More specifically the invention, which is computer based, evaluates the proficiency of language interpreters, including in terms of determining if they have knowledge of specific technical terms in a certain field, for example medicine. The invention seeks to … Continue reading Language Line Services, Inc (Patent): IPO 14 May 2013
IPO The application concerns a gene called VHZ that encodes a phosphatase. The claims at issue are second medical use claims that are directed to agents against VHZ for use in the treatment of cancers in which VHZ is overexpressed. The examiner had objected that the application only provides support for the use of anti-VHZ … Continue reading Agency for Science, Technology and Research (Patent): IPO 28 May 2013
IPO The application relates to transcoding a web site by storing information that is found on one page of the site, inserting it into the transcoded version of another page, and providing the result to a mobile communication device. The ‘stored information’ may be a street address, a map, a telephone number or a brand … Continue reading Afilias Technologies Limited (Patent): IPO 30 May 2013
IPO This decision relates to costs in revocation proceedings. In an earlier decision (BL/0326/12), the hearing officer found the claims as granted to be invalid for lack of novelty. However, revocation was subsequently avoided by amendment under section 75. The claimants were found to be entitled to an award of costs in line with the … Continue reading Tip-TopCom Ltd v Salvus Technology Limited (Patent): IPO 16 May 2013
An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Lysanda Limited under section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. As a result, it was found that Emmanouil Hatiris should not be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip removing him as … Continue reading Lysanda Limited, Alexandra Willard and Emmanouil Hatiris (Patent) O00815: IPO 7 Jan 2015
The court was asked whether advice given by an accountant could be protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege. The company had taken advice from its accountants, and objected to disclosure of that advice to the tax authorities under a notice issued under section 20 of the 1970 Act. Held: Legal professional privilege was not … Continue reading Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Others: CA 13 Oct 2010
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside. Held: Investors having once assigned their causes of action to the ICS, could not later … Continue reading Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society: HL 19 Jun 1997
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program. Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which could already be done without a computer. It has no relevant technical effect. Accordingly, the … Continue reading Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks: CA 13 Nov 2014
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
No Pattern Established to Patent Computer Systems The Comptroller appealed against the decision in Chancery to grant a patent to the clamant for an invention which the comptroller said should have been excluded from protection under section 1(2) as a computer program. It was argued that the UK was taking a different approach to the … Continue reading Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents: CA 8 Oct 2008
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
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
In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the appeal was against refusal. Held: Jacob LJ said: ‘the court must approach … Continue reading Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1: CA 27 Oct 2006
Allegation of infringement of patent for airline seats. The claimant sought to challenge the grant of a European Patent. Held: Virgin’s appeal was dismissed. England had surrendered jurisdiction to review or investigate the decision of European Patent Office (EPO) to register a patent Patten, Black, Kitchin LJJ  EWCA Civ 1713,  WLR (D) 511, … Continue reading Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and Others: CA 20 Dec 2013
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 . .
The applicant had not filed his statement of inventorship form the time allowed, although in he had indirectly identified the inventors and the Hearing Officer Mr Panchen held that s13(2)(a) was satisfied. However nothing at all had been said about . .
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 . .
An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Emerson Electric Co under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Shawn M Chawgo should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Todd A Westley, Richard W Ballas, . .
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 . .
IPO The application relates to retrieving data from a remote computer using e-mail. A local computer sends a first e-mail containing machine-readable retrieval criteria and the remote computer responds with an . .
(Patents) ‘The United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction to prevent vexation and oppression by persons subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, the courts are entitled to prevent persons domiciled in this country from being submitted to vexatious . .
The employee had patented in the US a trading system he invented whilst employed by the defendant, who now sought ownership. He appealed a finding that the inventions had been made during the normal course of his employment. The employment contract . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Renovo Limited. As a result, it was found that Ann Helena Ledwith should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent for the . .
(Patent) An uncontested application was filed by Smart Holograms Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Roger Bradley Millington should be mentioned as sole inventor in . .
IPO An uncontested application was filed by NATS (EN ROUTE) PLC 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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
IPO The application is concerned with a method of operating gaming machines in which players are offered games in which they can exercise a level of skill, strategy or risk. A proportion of the award (whether won . .
The hearing officer had deferred a decision on whether to order the claimant to give security for costs in revocation proceedings (see O/345/06) in order to allow either party to request a written opinion. The claimant so requested and the . .
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 . .
IPO This application relates to an electronic gaming machine such as a ‘slot machine’ wherein players receive monetary awards which are displayed, for example, in the form of a three digit number. The player can . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
A court no longer has the discretion as to whether to amend a patent upon application, but must, following European practice, do so when a proper application is made. This is the case despite the clear wording of the English Act. A judge at first . .
IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Michael Jones and Ian Henderson, it was found that they should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention . .
As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Michael Jones and Ian Henderson, it was found that they should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Infringement allegation . .
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. . .
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 . .
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 . .
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. . .
The applicants appealed rejection of their applications for patents. The comptroller-general had said that patents were in respect of computer programs excluded from registration.
Held: The appeals failed. There was no relevant technical . .
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.
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 . .
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 . .
Changes in court procedure where judges now read rather more before hand to save court time could lead to confusion as to what of the paperwork before the court was now deemed to have been read in open court and therefore in the public domain. The . .
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Revocation was sought on the ground that the patent was invalid because of anticipation by prior publication. The court considered its powers under section 77 in the context of such a revocation application: ‘ . . the power to revoke arises in . .
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 . .
A constructive trust can only arise as against a legal owner only by virtue of an unconscionable act by the legal owner. A claim by an employee against an employer in respect of ownership of a patent was unlikely to succeed. . .
The company appealed from refusal of re-instatement of its patent which had expired through non-payment of renewal fees. On payment of the fees, the Patent Office objected that the applicant was not the registered proprietor.
Held: The . .
An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Lysanda Limited under section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. As a result, it was found that Emmanouil Hatiris should not be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and . .
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
Parties had together applied to register a trade mark. Later one applied and the other opposed, and application. At various times they had been represented by trade mark agents and solicitors. Protection against discovery was now sought as to communications with the trade mark agents. Held: Nourse J refused to extend the protection of legal … Continue reading Dormeuil Trade Mark: ChD 1983
IPO The invention related to linking a software application that is pre-installed on a client device with a user account, thereby enabling certain acts to be carried out in relation to that application such as updating or reinstalling the application, or installing the application on another client device associated with the user account. A check … Continue reading Apple Inc (Patent): IPO 15 Mar 2016
IPO UK patent application GB2502133 was applied for in the name of WTL Technologies Limited and names Len Maxwell as the sole inventor. Ian Dennis Thirkell made an application under section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977 to the effect that Len Maxwell should not be mentioned as inventor, together with a further application under … Continue reading Thirkell, WTL Technologies Limited, Maxwell (Patent): IPO 29 Jan 2016
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 Excluded fields (refused) – The invention relates to a system for generating electronic security documents on a computing system. The invention provides a new method for generating and storing a security document in a multi-node network in which the document is assigned a unique document identifier including amongst other things a process identifier, and … Continue reading Recipero Ltd (Patent): IPO 23 Dec 2014
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
IPO This was a Decision on costs following an earlier substantive Decision on entitlement in favour of the defendants. The lack of representation of the claimant prior to the week before the hearing was noted. An award on the scale was made to the defendant, taking this into account. Mr J Elbro  UKIntelP o33614, … Continue reading Surinder Pal Kaur and Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Guang-Hui Zhao should be mentioned as the sole inventor in relation to the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as … Continue reading Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited, Jian-Qun Li and Guang-Hui Zhao (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014
IPO The application relates to a method of computationally modelling production from a subterranean region with reference to a wellbore and surrounding formation, such as may be encountered in oil and gas exploration and production. The modelling typically provides simulations which predict the flow of oil, water and/or gas flow from a formation, using a … Continue reading Senergy Holdings Limited (Patent): IPO 4 Feb 2015
Entitlement, Inventorship – This was an action brought by the wife and successor-in-title of one of the joint inventors against the other to remove him as both a joint inventor and co-owner. The patent concerned a standalone LED display interconnectable with itself which shows an editable picture. The hearing officer held that the attempts by … Continue reading Surinder Palkaur v Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 30 May 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 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
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
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 and granted patent for the … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Thursby, Peck and Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 10 Jun 2014
Amendment, Entitlement – A request to amend the defendant’s counterstatement was opposed by the claimants. The hearing officer exercised his discretion in line with the overriding principle to deal with the case justly and allowed the amendment. Mr P Slater  UKIntelP o22414, GB2421687 Bailii Patents Act 1977 13 37 England and Wales Intellectual Property … Continue reading Susan Grant v Teifion Emlyn James (Patent): IPO 22 May 2014
B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied saying that the claims failed for obviousness. Features of the nebulizer were admittedly old and well known, but the claimant asserted a new mechanism which reduced the size of the droplets, increasing its efficiency. Held: The patent was invalid for obviousness. Laddie J set … Continue reading Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2): ChD 1996
IPO An uncontested decision was filed by La Cotiere Grand-Large under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Eric Glorieux should be mentioned as the sole inventor in relation to the granted EP(UK) patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as … Continue reading La Cotiere Grand Large, Manuel Brandenberg and Eric Glorieux (Patent): IPO 6 Feb 2014
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section 70 relying on the statements. The judge held the statement inadmissible. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Where there … Continue reading Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company: CA 4 Nov 1999
In English law a breach of statutory duty, is actionable as such by a private individual to whom loss or damage is caused by a breach of that duty. Lord Diplock said that it was quite unarguable: ‘that if such a contravention of Article 86 gives rise to any cause of action at all, it … Continue reading Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board: HL 1984