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 injunctive relief.
Held: The defendant could not begin arrangements to take advantage of the expiry of the patent until it expired, and the extension of the injunction would put the parties back in the position they would have been in if the defendants had not infringed the patent. The Patents Act could not achieve this, but the Supreme Court Act could be used.
Judges:
Fysh QC
Citations:
Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Patents 30
Links:
Statutes:
Supreme Court Act 1981 37, Patents Act 1977 60
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Multiform Displays v Whitmarley Displays CA 1956
Though contempt proceedings must remain a possibility whilst any injunction is running, this procedure is an undesirable and highly inconvenient way of resolving patent infringement disputes. . .
Cited – Multiform Displays v Whitmarley Displays HL 1957
The claimant appealed against refusal of a committal order to enforce a court order in patent infringement proceedings.
Held: Viscount Simonds said: ‘Thus it is, my Lords, that upon what was a motion for sequestration and committal your . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited CA 4-Oct-2001
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Grisbrook v MGN Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimant sought an order committing officers of the defendant company for having failed to obey a court order requiring the defendant to cease infrigement of his copyright in photographs. He operated as a photographer of celebrities selling . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.80194