The original inventor obtained a patent for a brake fluid protection system. A loan was raised against the patent, assigning also the future developments of the idea. The loan was called in, and then assigned to the defenders, who took the idea forward obtaining further patents. The pursuer asserted infringement.
Held: The loan transferred all the security into the patent, and the further improvements were also charged. The charge would not have been of value unless the lender had been assured his security would not be undermined by further developments. The pursuer required the loan, and the lender required the security. The security was not void.
Nicholls, Hoffmann. Hope, Walker, Brown LL
[2004] UKHL 5, Times 12-Feb-2004, 2004 GWD 5-95, 2004 SCLR 273, 2004 SC (HL) 9, (2004) 27(4) IPD 27034, 2004 SLT 255, [2004] RPC 34
House of Lords, Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Limited IHCS 6-Feb-2001
. .
Cited by:
Appeal – Buchanan v Alba Diagnostics Limited IHCS 6-Feb-2001
. .
Cited – Actavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.192676
