Ishida appealed a finding of infringement of the claimants patent, and challenged the patent for obviousness. The machines were used for packaging nuts etc. The patent referred to fixed mechanisms, and Isihida said their mechanism swivelled, and did not infringe. In fact all such machines allowed some movement, and the judge, and the appeal court held the mechanism to be infringing. In challenging a patent, the judge’s decision as to obviousness should not normally be set aside. The patent stood, but the injunction should have been granted in standard form.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous, Lady Justice Hale, The Hon Mr Justice Parker
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1092
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd CA 26-Mar-1999
The claimant alleged copying of designs. The defendant appealed a finding that copying had taken place.
Held: The rejection of the dissection test in Ladbroke was as to the subsistence of copyright and not as to infringement. Evidence of those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159952