Clark v Adie: HL 1877

The court should look to the ‘pith and marrow’ of the invention to see whether a patent infringement had occurred. For a claim be made for a ‘subordinate’ invention, it would have been necessary distinctly to claim it in the patent.
Lord Cairns
(1877) 2 App Cas 315
Cited by:
CitedC Van Der Lely NV v Bamfords Ltd HL 1963
The pith and marrow doctrine on the construction of patents claims was ‘necessary to prevent sharp practice.’ As to the doctrine of enablement as explained by Lord Westbury: ‘Lord Westbury must have meant experiments with a view to discovering . .
CitedKirin-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 . .
CitedCatnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd HL 1982
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 . .
CitedEli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.218732