Click the case name for better results:

Bode Oluwa (Patent) O/378/12: IPO 3 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

Hideaki Koiwai (Patent): IPO 31 Dec 2007

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

CFPH LLC (Patent): IPO 10 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

Ian Popeck v Runaway Technology, Inc (Patent): IPO 24 May 2007

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 proceedings were stayed to await the opinion. This found that all claims lacked novelty over … Continue reading Ian Popeck v Runaway Technology, Inc (Patent): IPO 24 May 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/077/07: IPO 15 Mar 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

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

Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and Another: CA 22 Jun 2007

The patentee had invented a method for storing CDs. The patentee sought leave to appeal a finding that its patent was invalid, and if successful, to appeal a finding that the defendant’s apparatus was not infringing. Held: The application for leave to appeal did involve a judicial finding sufficient to satisfy the obligation under TRIPS. … Continue reading Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and Another: CA 22 Jun 2007

Cerise Innovation Technology Ltd vAbdulhayoglu (Patent) O/067/00: IPO 23 Feb 2000

IPO The claimant launched entitlement proceedings in respect of four withdrawn and unpublished patent applications, arguing that the defendant had made the inventions during the course of his duties whilst employed by the claimant. The claimant argued that the defendant was a director of Cerise Innovation at the time when the inventions were made and … Continue reading Cerise Innovation Technology Ltd vAbdulhayoglu (Patent) O/067/00: IPO 23 Feb 2000

Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs: CA 21 Sep 2021

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

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

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

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

Mclaughlin and Harvey Limited v Openhydro Group Limited: IPO 11 Feb 2014

IPO The patent related to a deployment method for a turbine base which is deployed on the seabed. The claimant and the defendant worked together on a project in this area, and the dispute was whose employees had devised the invention. The dispute hinged around what had occurred between the production by the claimant of … Continue reading Mclaughlin and Harvey Limited v Openhydro Group Limited: IPO 11 Feb 2014

Central Research Laboratories Ltd v Intelligent Clothing Ltd and Alan Magill (Patent): IPO 29 Sep 2000

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

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

Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others: CA 31 Jul 2006

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

Bank of America Corporation (Patent): IPO 4 Oct 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

Russell Taylor v AQ Plc (Patent): IPO 1 May 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

Helimedia Limited (Patent): IPO 15 Jun 2010

IPO The Hearing Officer decided not to refuse a request for an opinion on the validity of GB 2377538 B. The request was based on material considered by the EPO when refusing an equivalent European application. The proprietor of the patent was of the view, despite the refusal of the EP application, and an equivalent … Continue reading Helimedia Limited (Patent): IPO 15 Jun 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

ATT Knowledge Ventures, LP (Patent): IPO 2 Jul 2008

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

Kenneth Farr; Orbis Corporation (Patent): IPO 11 Jun 2008

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

Eventsmarket Pty Ltd (Patent): IPO 26 Mar 2004

OIP The invention concerns a computer-based system for a form of online betting in which the participants effectively bet against each other rather than a bookmaker. It is based on the use of ‘coupons’ which are created and traded in the system. A coupon is defined as having a set value if some future event … Continue reading Eventsmarket Pty Ltd (Patent): IPO 26 Mar 2004

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

M-Systems Flask Disk Pioneers Ltd and Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Patent): IPO 8 Nov 2006

IPO The patent in suit relates to a portable data storage device which can be connected to the USB port of a computer. The Claimant (M-Systems) sought revocation of the patent on the grounds that the patent as granted included matter extending beyond that originally disclosed, was not novel or did not involve an inventive … Continue reading M-Systems Flask Disk Pioneers Ltd and Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Patent): IPO 8 Nov 2006

Nigel Melling v William Butler David Birkett (Patent): IPO 28 Mar 2006

The Claimant withdrew his reference under Sections 13 and 37 and the Defendant asked for an award of costs on an ‘exemplary basis’. A decision on this issues was made on the papers and the Hearing Officer awarded the Defendants the sum of andpound;500 to be paid by the Claimant. Judges: Mr P Back Citations: … Continue reading Nigel Melling v William Butler David Birkett (Patent): IPO 28 Mar 2006

Chan v Jeffcoat (Patent): IPO 20 Jun 2001

IPO The patent concerned a non-woven fabric used primarily for wound dressing. The parties had discussed such a wound dressing in 1993, and in 1994 a company was formed to carry on the business of development and production of wound dressings, with the parties as shareholders. The defendant was managing director and had approached a … Continue reading Chan v Jeffcoat (Patent): IPO 20 Jun 2001

Kaiser v Morgan and Schmidt: IPO 14 Aug 2000

PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions – In an EP patent that had been found bad for lack of novelty and obviousness (see Decision O/147/97) an opportunity for amendment was given. When the applicant tried to take advantage of this opportunity, the proposed amendments were opposed, initially by Morgan only and subsequently by both Morgan … Continue reading Kaiser v Morgan and Schmidt: IPO 14 Aug 2000

Forticrete Ltd v Lafarge Roofing Ltd: ChD 25 Nov 2005

Patent infringement action. Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Kitchin Citations: [2005] EWHC 3024 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 64 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich CA 9-Aug-1999 The tenant had sought an order against the council landlord for failure to repair her dwelling. The defendant appealed … Continue reading Forticrete Ltd v Lafarge Roofing Ltd: ChD 25 Nov 2005

Hughes v Paxman: CA 23 Jun 2006

The parties were co-proprietors of a patent. Mr Hughes appealed a decision confirming an order that the patent must be exploited. Held: The comptroller had the power to make such an order. Parliament could not have intended a deadlock situation between the proprietors to allow the frustration of the exploitation of the patent. Though given … Continue reading Hughes v Paxman: CA 23 Jun 2006

American Home Products Corporation, Professor Roy Calne v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited: ChD 2000

A patent was granted for a product, produced by the bacterium streptomyces hygroscopicus, called rapamycin, which was useful to suppress transplant rejection. Because rapamycin was a known product at the priority date, it could not be patented: neither could its use as a treatment, because that would offend section 4(2) of the Patents Act 1977. … Continue reading American Home Products Corporation, Professor Roy Calne v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited: ChD 2000

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

Cinpres Gas Injection Limited v Melea Limited: ChD 23 Nov 2006

The claimant sought to pursue its licence claim after its claim to a proprietary interest in the patent had been dismissed. Held: The claim misunderstood the way section 37 worked. To have a claim to a license the license the claimant had to show some proprietary interest. The grant of a licence was not to … Continue reading Cinpres Gas Injection Limited v Melea Limited: ChD 23 Nov 2006

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

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

Mentor Corporation v Hollister Incorporated: CA 1993

Lloyd LJ added to the guidance at first instance: ‘In each case sufficiency will thus be a question of fact and degree, depending on the nature of the invention and the other circumstances of the case. But if a working definition is required then one cannot do better than that proposed by Buckley L.J. in … Continue reading Mentor Corporation v Hollister Incorporated: CA 1993

Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd: PatC 5 Apr 2001

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

Maudrich, Winkler, Singer, Lang, Fukarek, Mekra Lang Gmbh Co Kg and Leybold Optics Dresden Gmb (Patent): IPO 22 Dec 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Maudrich, Winkler, Singer, Lang and Fukarek. As a result, it was found that Maudrich and Winkler should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention along with the currently named inventors, Singer, Lang and Fukarek. It was also directed that an addendum slip mentioning … Continue reading Maudrich, Winkler, Singer, Lang, Fukarek, Mekra Lang Gmbh Co Kg and Leybold Optics Dresden Gmb (Patent): IPO 22 Dec 2010

Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (T/A Amazing Animals) and Another v Captive Animals Protection Society: ChD 20 May 2016

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

Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company: SC 2 Nov 2011

The court considered an appeal against the declaration of invalidity of a biomedical patent for a new human protein on the grounds that it was not susceptible of industrial application. Held: The patentee’s appeal succeeded. The court had to apply the jurisprudence of the European Board. The Board’s approach applied principles under which the disclosure … Continue reading Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company: SC 2 Nov 2011

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd: SC 3 Jul 2013

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

Apple Inc (Patent): IPO 15 Mar 2016

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

Thirkell, WTL Technologies Limited, Maxwell (Patent): IPO 29 Jan 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

Woolard, Re A Patent Application: PatC 12 Apr 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

Sustainable Energy and Heating Systems Ltd (Patent): IPO 19 Aug 2014

IPO The application relates to a metering system to measure usage of renewable energy produced by a privately owned micro-generating unit. The micro-generating unit is part of a larger commercial installation which operates on the basis of ‘sharecropping’, where private users are allocated amounts of renewable energy based upon their investment into the scheme. The … Continue reading Sustainable Energy and Heating Systems Ltd (Patent): IPO 19 Aug 2014

Jackson-Ebben and Wine Innovations Ltd and Nash (Patent): IPO 24 Dec 2014

Costs – This was a Decision on costs following an earlier substantive Decision on entitlement in favour of the defendants. An award on the Comptroller’s scale was made to the defendants. Mr J Elbro [2014] UKIntelP o56814, GB 2469554 Bailii Patents Act 1977 8 12 37 England and Wales Intellectual Property, Costs Updated: 28 December … Continue reading Jackson-Ebben and Wine Innovations Ltd and Nash (Patent): IPO 24 Dec 2014

Surinder Pal Kaur and Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 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 [2014] UKIntelP o33614, … Continue reading Surinder Pal Kaur and Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014

Surinder Palkaur v Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 30 May 2014

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

Mclaughlin and Harvey Limited and Openhydro Group Limited (Patent): IPO 30 May 2014

Costs, Entitlement – This was a Decision on costs following an earlier substantive Decision on entitlement in favour of the defendants. Although the claimant’s presentation of its case had suffered from some defects, the hearing officer declined to depart from the standard scale of costs. An award on the scale was made to the defendant. … Continue reading Mclaughlin and Harvey Limited and Openhydro Group Limited (Patent): IPO 30 May 2014

Susan Grant v Teifion Emlyn James (Patent): IPO 22 May 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 [2014] 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

Dr Harry Nduka (Patent)O/132/14: IPO 20 Mar 2014

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

Neath and Neath v Neath: IPO 12 Sep 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

Gareth Glass, Adrian Roberts and Nigel Davison (Patent): IPO 20 Aug 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

Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria: CA 5 Nov 2009

The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant. Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The offence allowed an officer to seize material found … Continue reading Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria: CA 5 Nov 2009

Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another: Admn 14 Oct 2009

The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege. Held: The material was not protected. The privilege given under the Act by virtue of the Morgan Grenfell decision was limited to … Continue reading Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another: Admn 14 Oct 2009

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and Others: CA 20 Dec 2013

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 [2013] EWCA Civ 1713, [2013] WLR (D) 511, … Continue reading Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and Others: CA 20 Dec 2013