Click the case name for better results:

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

Hadley Industries Plc v Metal Sections Limited, Metsec (UK) Limited: PatC 13 Nov 1998

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 instance should be careful to follow a line of cases … Continue reading Hadley Industries Plc v Metal Sections Limited, Metsec (UK) Limited: PatC 13 Nov 1998

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

Tehrani v Bonaduz Ar and Others: IPEC 18 Feb 2022

Application to amend patent claims Judges: His Honour Judge Hacon Citations: [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 75 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.677586

Kimberley-Clark Worldwide Inc v Proctor and Gamble Ltd and Another: CA 1 Dec 1999

Where a party to an action asserted that the patent holder had abused his monopoly position, the courts in England had discretion to refuse the patent holder leave to apply to amend his patent. When dealing with such issues, the court was entitled to take into account a wider range of issues than that contemplated … Continue reading Kimberley-Clark Worldwide Inc v Proctor and Gamble Ltd and Another: CA 1 Dec 1999

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

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

Linstol UK Limited v Huang (Patent): IPO 21 Nov 2012

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

Polytan Planungs-Und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen Mbh Co, Edel Grass BV and Fieldturf Holdings Inc (Patent) O/412/10: IPO 30 Nov 2010

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

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

MeadWestVaco Corp v Montreuil Offset (Patent): IPO 20 Feb 2009

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

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/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

David Duckett and Joan Duckett (Patent): IPO 12 Aug 2005

IPO The application relates to a propulsion unit including electric and hydraulic systems alleged to work by using an alternator to maintain a battery at full charge whilst providing further electricity for auxiliary power. Objection was also raised that the invention lacked novelty and/or an inventive step on the basis of two documents. The HO … Continue reading David Duckett and Joan Duckett (Patent): IPO 12 Aug 2005

Jones and Henderson v Protensive Limited (Patent) O-207-03: IPO 17 Jul 2003

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 mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention. … Continue reading Jones and Henderson v Protensive Limited (Patent) O-207-03: IPO 17 Jul 2003

Interroof Products Limited (Patent): IPO 18 Jan 2002

IPO Judging from the various activities the proprietor was engaged in and the range of problems he was effectively dealing with during the period the eighth year renewal fee could have been paid, the stress the applicant was experiencing was not such as to prevent him from acting in a reasonable manner. Moreover, the applicants … Continue reading Interroof Products Limited (Patent): IPO 18 Jan 2002

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

Re Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Ltd: PatC 26 Oct 2011

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

Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other information. She had obtained employment with a customer of the claimant, and was said to carry out … Continue reading Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd: SC 24 Jun 2020

SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were concerned with biotechnology, and in particular the production of human antibodies using transgenic mice. By the priority date, the potential uses … Continue reading Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd: SC 24 Jun 2020

Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through the giving of the ‘wrongful undertakings’ Held: The joined party, who had not itself … Continue reading Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

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

PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others: ChD 25 Nov 1994

A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. Thorley submitted that if a product had been made available to … Continue reading PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others: ChD 25 Nov 1994

Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another: SC 23 Jan 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genentech Inc (Patent): IPO 11 Aug 2014

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

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2011

The Secretary of State for Defence provides the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) with a list of technologies that could be considered prejudicial to national security or public safety. If the IPO receives a patent application for an invention employing any of the technology on the list it can issue directions under the Patents Act 1977 … Continue reading Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2011

Tip-TopCom Ltd v Salvus Technology Limited (Patent): IPO 16 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

Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board: HL 1984

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

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

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

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

Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004

The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’). Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance was addressed would have understood the author to be using the words to mean. Notice, however, that … Continue reading Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004