Hoover appealed a finding that Dyson’s patent was valid and infringed. They asserted the patent was not novel in the light of a US patent, and even so was obvious. One test was whether an application of the claimed patent would inevitably infringe the previous patent. Both parties had prepared models from the earlier patent. Because some ways of implementing the Dyson patent would not infringe the earlier one, the attack on novelty failed. A finding in relation to obviousness is akin to a finding of fact, and should only rarely be disturbed on appeal. It would not be set aside here. On infringement of the Dyson patent, the findings of the use of chambers in series, with a cyclone operating as the second chamber were justified on the evidence before the judge.
Judges:
Aldous, Sedley LJJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1440, (2001) 24(12) IPD 24077, [2002] RPC 22, [2002] ENPR 5
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Tire v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited HL 1975
The object of damages is to compensate for loss or injury. The general rule for ‘economic’ torts is that the measure is that sum of money which will put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the . .
Appeal from – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 5-Apr-2001
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 3-Oct-2000
The plaintiff alleged infringement of its European Patent in a vacuum cleaning appliance. The defendants sought its revocation on the statutory grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and insufficiency, and for threats. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 3) ChD 21-Oct-2002
The plaintiff had accepted a payment in which was more advantageous than its own offer of settlement. It now sought costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis. They argued that under the rule they were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis . .
See Also – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited (No 4) PatC 18-Feb-2003
The court refused to make an order for a payment of interim costs when the substantive claim for costs remained to be heard. The claimant had accepted a payment in entitling it to its costs, but now sought an interim award before the full costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.166552