IPO Patent applications GB0621068.6 and GB0621069.4 relate to methods where parthenogenesis is used to activate a human oocyte (i.e. stimulation of a human oocyte, without fertilisation by a sperm cell) to produce a parthenogenetically-activated oocyte or ‘parthenote’. GB0621068.6 concerns the production of human stem cells from such parthenotes, whilst GB0621069.4 concerns human synthetic corneas and … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation (Patent): IPO 16 Aug 2012
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
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 mentioned as joint inventors in any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them … Continue reading Koito Manufacturing Co Ltd and Akinori Matsumoto and Takayuki Iwaki (Patent): IPO 31 Mar 2003
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 infringement. The appeal raised the issue of the correct approach under UK law (and … Continue reading Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company: CA 25 Jun 2015
The claimant had asserted a joint authorship of the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ written in the sixties. The defendant appealed saying that the claim had been brought too late, and that the finding ignored practice in the music industry. The copyright in the song had already been assigned by the authors before the … Continue reading Brooker and Another v Fisher: CA 4 Apr 2008
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 applications, the hearing officer addressed the impact of the decision in Human Genome Sciences v Eli Lilly on the relative effects of the jurisprudence of … Continue reading Ajit Lalvani, Kartar Singh Lalvani Robert Taylor (Patent): IPO 23 May 2013
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 identify an optimal dosage regime. A pharmaceutical company, which had acquired the patent, conducted … Continue reading Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v ICOS Corporation and Another: SC 27 Mar 2019
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
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
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
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
The issue raised on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether three products manufactured by Actavis would infringe a patent whose proprietor is Lilly, namely European Patent (UK) No 1 313 508, and its corresponding designations in France, Italy and Spain. Held: Eli Lilly’s appeal succeeded. The Actavis products directly infringed the respondent’s patents. The Court … Continue reading Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jul 2017
Held: The court must answer a relatively simple question of fact: was it obvious to the skilled but unimaginative addressee to make a product or carry out a process falling within the claim Lord Justice Moore-Bick Lord Justice Lewison And Lord Justice Kitchin [2012] EWCA Civ 1234, [2013] RPC 27 Bailii England and Wales Cited … Continue reading MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd: CA 10 Oct 2012
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 [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
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 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 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
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
The application relates to ‘System and method for super-augmenting a persona to manifest a pan-environment super-cyborg for global governance’. The Hearing Officer considered the application to lack both industrial application and sufficiency and subsequently refused the application. Mrs C L Davies [2013] UKIntelP o40113, GB1213494.6 Bailii Patents Act 1977 1(1)(c) 1493) Intellectual Property Updated: 23 … Continue reading Caleb Suresh Motupalli (Patent) O/401/13: IPO 4 Oct 2013
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Contractor and Client Copyrights The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract. Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct contribution to the words appearing in the eventual published item. … Continue reading Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc: PatC 18 Mar 1998
Request for declaration of non-infringement of and for revocation of patents.
Held: Even if provisions are not listed in s130(7), it is undesirable for provision in our domestic law which in fact do correspond to provisions in the EPC to be . .
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 . .
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 . .
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
It was common ground that one of the claimants (M) contacted one of the defendants (H) with the idea of using magnetic particles instead of electrostatic particles in Hs prior cockroach trapping technology. M also supplied samples of magnetic particles for H to test. These tests proved the concept. The hearing officer was not persuaded … Continue reading IDA Limited Et Al v University of Southampton Et Al (Patent): IPO 31 Mar 2004
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
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 prepared mentioning her as a joint inventor for the published patent application for … Continue reading DNA Electronics Ltd, Christofer Toumazou, Bhusana Premanode and Leila Shepherd (Patent): IPO 14 May 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
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
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
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 addendum slip mentioning them as a joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent … Continue reading Ayumu Taniguchi Juni-Ichi Tanabe v Toyo Kohan Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 27 Jan 2000
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
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
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
The appellant challenged dismissal of its claim for patent infringement. The judge had held that the design was obvious, involving essentially only the collocation of two known features. Held: Collocation was no more than a species of obviousness, and the test remained to be performed as to whether the bringing together of the two ideas, … Continue reading SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another: CA 11 Jul 2002
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
In a claim for infringement of a patent, where variations on a patent were to be considered, the court should look to the three tests set down in Improver (‘the Protocal questions’), and the claim should be interpreted in a purposive and contextual way. The court should ask if the variation was material, would the … Continue reading Wheatley, Bortec Limited v Drillsafe Limited, Force Group Services Plc, Foster, Foster, Carter, Davies: CA 25 Jul 2000
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Patents Judges: Mrs S Williams Citations: GB 2323411, O/120/02 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 13(1) Intellectual Property Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.177152
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 mentioned as a joint inventors in the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them … Continue reading Ayumu Taniguchi, Juni-Ichi Tanabe, Fumio Kunishige Masao Komai v Toyo Kohan Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 27 Jan 2000
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
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that the value of any one item did not exceed the stated limit. The claimants … Continue reading Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd: HL 16 May 2007
Patent properly granted The House considered the patentability of a chemical product, citalopram made up of two enantiomers, as opposed to the process of its creation, questioning whether it could be new or was insufficient within the 1977 Act. Held: The appeal against the patent was dismissed. The separated form, the (+) entantiomer had not … Continue reading Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S: HL 25 Feb 2009
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future royalties. Held: His appeal was allowed. Limitation did not apply, … Continue reading Fisher v Brooker and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009
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
IPEC An application under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007 was filed by Dr Peter Vincent Smallwood to mention Dr Peter Vincent Smallwood and Jonathan Hibbard as joint inventors. Robert Timothy Gros, the patent . .
The applicant had implemented an algorithm for solving square roots problems by embodying it within a computer chip. He appealed against refusal of the patent by the Patents Office.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Aldous J said: ‘I have come . .
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 . .
