Search Results for: Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the European Patent Convention

Click the case name for better results:

Wheatley, Bortec Limited v Drillsafe Limited, Force Group Services Plc, Foster, Foster, Carter, Davies: CA 25 Jul 2000

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

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