Appeal against decision to rescind the grant of a patent. Citations: [2006] EWHC 725 (Pat) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.241788
Judges: Pumfrey J Citations: [2005] EWHC 2416 (Pat), [2006] RPC 293 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(2) Citing: Appeal from – Shopalotto.Com Limited PO 14-Mar-2005 PO Patent Office – Ex Parte Decisions. . . Cited by: Cited – Cappellini and Bloomberg, Re PatC 13-Mar-2007 The applicants appealed rejection of their applications for patents. The … Continue reading Shopalotto.Com Ltd, Re Patent Application Gb 0017772.5: PatC 7 Nov 2005
Patent validity – not an invention. Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Laddie Citations: [2004] EWHC 482 (Pat) Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(2)(d) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.194465
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 circumstances where there is a lis between the patentee and the applicant. The … Continue reading Regina v Comptroller-General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ex parte Ash and Lacey Building Products Ltd: 2002
The company appealed against refusal of patentunder the provision restricting such for ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ Held: The matter was referred to the ECJ. Henry Carr QC [2013] EWHC 807 (Ch), [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2, BL O/316/12, [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2 Bailii Patents Act … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 17 Apr 2013
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
In an earlier interim decision relating to an application for revocation, the claims of the patent had been found to be invalid but the patentee was allowed the opportunity to file amendments under s.75 aimed at rectifying the defects found. A request to amend was subsequently filed which was opposed by the claimant for revocation. … Continue reading Linstol UK Limited v Huang (Patent): IPO 21 Nov 2012
Berni Hambleton of Sterling IP initiated proceedings under section 72(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 for revocation of the patent on the grounds that the invention as defined in claims 1, 21 to 25 and 34 was not entitled to its earliest priority date, and that the invention as such lacked an inventive step over … Continue reading Hambleton of Sterling IP and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Patent): IPO 6 Aug 2012
IPO This is the consolidation of two individual actions for the revocation of two GB patents held by Fieldturf, GB 2329910 and its divisional GB 2350843. Fieldturf applied to amend these two patents under s75 during the course of these actions. As a result of the applicants for revocation stating that they no longer wish … Continue reading Polytan Planungs-Und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen Mbh Co, Edel Grass BV and Fieldturf Holdings Inc (Patent) O/412/10: IPO 30 Nov 2010
IPO The patent relates to packaging for optical discs. The initial application for revocation was based on allegations of lack of novelty and inventive step, as well as insufficiency and added matter. The hearing officer allowed amendments which had been offered to address the issues of insufficiency and added matter, and held that the attacks … Continue reading MeadWestVaco Corp v Montreuil Offset (Patent): IPO 20 Feb 2009
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
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
IPO Crompton Lighting applied to revoke GB2059196B on the grounds that it was not new and did not involve an inventive step. The proprietor, Emergi-Lite Safety Systems, filed a counter-statement, but the two parties reached a settlement before any evidence was filed. Following the settlement, the applicant sought leave to withdraw from the revocation proceedings. … Continue reading Crompton Lighting Ltd v Emergi-Lite Safety Systems Ltd (Patent): IPO 18 May 2000
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 court considered the meaning of the phrase a ‘person skilled in the art’ in the context of a patent claim.Aldous J said: ‘The section requires the skilled man to be able to perform the invention, but does not lay down the limits as to the time and energy that the skilled man must spend … Continue reading Mentor Corporation v Hollister Incorporated: ChD 1991
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
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
IPO Evidence, Revocation – The defendants in this case objected to the admissibility of the claimant’s evidence-in-reply on the grounds that it was not strictly in reply, and could have been filed at an earlier . .
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
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 e-mail containing the requested data. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within … Continue reading Lantana Ltd (Patent): IPO 4 Feb 2013
Sufficiency, Support – The invention appears to relate to the use of certain compounds in nuclear imaging for discovering the cause of cancer. The Hearing Officer decided that the claimed invention was not disclosed in a manner that was clear and complete enough for it to be performed by a skilled person, and was not … Continue reading Alaa Hussein Al-Darraji (Patent): IPO 19 Dec 2012
The description in a patent application’s specification must be of an invention. Citations: Ind Summary 28-Nov-1994 Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(1) 72(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996 The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the … Continue reading Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc: CA 28 Nov 1994
ICO This decision concerned whether the patent in suit should be restored following a failure to pay the renewal fee. In December 2000 and January 2001respectively two patent applications were filed for the same invention – a British (GB) application and a European (EP) application, the latter designating amongst other countries, GB and claiming priority … Continue reading Orkli (UK) Limited (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2009
IPO 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
IPO An uncontested application was filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha 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. It was found that that Steffen Nowotny and Siegfried Scharek should also be mentioned as joint inventors in relation … Continue reading Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, Yoshinori Ishikawa, Akio Sato, Steffen Nowotny and Siegfried Scharek (Patent): IPO 16 Dec 2008
(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 relation to any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning … Continue reading Smart Holograms Limited,Millington, Lowe, Davidson, Blyth, Kabilan and Marshall: IPO 27 Nov 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/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/184/08: IPO 30 Jun 2008
IPO The patent application relates to a golf putter having a measurement scale and sighting means to estimate the distance to the hole. The examiner had objected that new subject matter had been added contrary to section 76, that the invention lacked inventive step in the light of four prior specifications and that it was … Continue reading Hideaki Koiwai (Patent): IPO 31 Dec 2007
IPO 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 The application is concerned with games such as poker in which a combination of cards makes up a winning hand, or slot machine symbols making a winning row. In the card variant, certain cards have associated with them other, different, cards; for example the seven of hearts could be associated with the ace of … Continue reading IGT (Patent) O/198/07: IPO 16 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
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
IPO Spaclean made a reference to the comptroller that it was entitled to be granted patents for the invention forming the subject of PCT/GB2002/00725. After completion of the evidence rounds, communication from a director of Spaclean who furnished evidence on behalf of the company, ceased. A hearing date was appointed by the Hearing Officer but … Continue reading Spaclean Limited v Grunwell (Patent): IPO 24 Jun 2004
Held that BT were the rightful owners of the US and Canadian applications. Mr Yashap was ordered to execute the necessary documents (Messrs Wyatt and Percival already having signed); failing that, BT were authorised to sign on his behalf. Costs awarded against Mr Kashyap, but not Messrs Wyatt and Percival. Cannings’ United States Application [1992] … Continue reading British Telecommunications Plc v Wyatt, Percival and Kashyap (Patent): IPO 17 Jul 2002
IPO The claims related to an apparatus for gaming which was networked to a host computer and allocated players to levels each with an associated amount beyond which a player would be given an award. The nearest prior art was the applicant’s published application which lay in the section 2(3) field and had been refused … Continue reading Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent): IPO 18 Sep 2006
Judges: Floyd J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat), [2012] RPC 13 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Citing: Appeal from – Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Limited (Patent) IPO 23-Dec-2010 IPO The invention concerned a system for monitoring an electronic communication on the internet such as a chat room, e.g. being used by a … Continue reading Re Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Ltd: PatC 26 Oct 2011
The claimant sought statutory compensation, having whilst employee of the defendant, created a pump which came to widely used in the testing of diabetic status. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), [2014] RPC 29, [2014] WLR(D) 242 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Patents Act 1977 41(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: PatC 23 May 2014
A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s right to the invention and … Continue reading Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd: CA 22 Mar 2005
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 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 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 effect in merely moving vehicles and their cargos around according to a routing algorithm. Judges: Pumfrey J Citations: [2007] EWHC 476 (Pat) … Continue reading Cappellini and Bloomberg, Re: PatC 13 Mar 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
Question as to obviousness of patent. Judges: Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lady Justice Arden Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 1610, [2002] ENPR 10, [2002] RPC 41 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2) ChD 1996 B alleged infringement by M of … Continue reading Pharmacia Corporation, G D Searle and Company, Pfizer Inc v Merck and Co, Inc, Merck, Sharp and Dohme Limited: CA 14 Dec 2001
(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
The claimant held patents in respect of certain CD cassette boxes. It alleged infringement. Robert Walker LJ considered the meaning of ‘makes’ in the context of such proceedings. First, the word ‘makes’ must be given a meaning which, as a matter of ordinary language, it can reasonably bear. Secondly, it is not a term of … Continue reading Cartonneries De Thulin SA v CTP White Knight Ltd: CA 25 May 2000
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 passing between a client and its lawyers, acting in their professional capacity, in connection with the provision of legal … Continue reading Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another: SC 23 Jan 2013
Slade LJ said: ‘If the plea of obviousness is to succeed, the court has to be satisfied that it would have appeared to the hypothetical technician, skilled in the art but lacking in inventive capacity, worthwhile to coat the helix of a self-pulling corkscrew with a friction-reducing material for purpose (a) or purpose (b) above … Continue reading Hallen Co v Brabantia (UK) Ltd: CA 1991
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
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
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
Judges: Laddie J Citations: [1997] EWHC 372 (Pat), [1998] RPC 31 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.420014
Dispute as to entitlement to three Patents, and whether it should be heard in the IPO or the High Court. Mann J [2016] EWHC 3124 (Pat) Bailii Patents Act 1977 37 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572017
validity of patent. Held: No formula should distract the court from the statutory question. [2009] EWCA Civ 646, [2009] RPC 23, (2009) 109 BMLR 78, (2009) 32(9) IPD 32062 Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2) ChD 1996 B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied … Continue reading Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Another: CA 2 Jul 2009
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002
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
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
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
Appeal from refusal of patent Laddie J [2004] EWHC 482 (Patent) Bailii Patents Act 1977 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.194722
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
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
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
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
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
The plaintiffs had been established as market leaders with their patented construction, had ample production capacity and stocks, but had never granted any licence under their patent. The patent was for a novel type of galvanised steel lintel, which the relevant claim described as including a rear support back plate ‘extending vertically’ from a horizontal … Continue reading Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd: HL 1982
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
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had copied its house designs after a senior employee involved in creating the designs left and eventually came to work for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the copying was flagrant allowing . .
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 . .