IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 by MSP Corporation, the relevant provision now being rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007, it was found that Nicholas C Miller should also be named as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent … Continue reading MSP Corporation, Nicholas C Miller, Virgil A Marple, Daryl L Roberts and Benjamin Y H Liu (Patent): IPO 22 May 2008

IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Antenova Limited, it was found that Scott William Spencer Tyler should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared … Continue reading Antenova Limited, Scott William Spencer Tyler, Devis Iellici, Steven Gregory O’Keefe, James William Kingsley, Simon Philip Kingsley (Patent): IPO 29 Feb 2008

It was common ground that one of the claimants (M) contacted one of the defendants (H) with the idea of using magnetic particles instead of electrostatic particles in Hs prior cockroach trapping technology. M also supplied samples of magnetic particles for H to test. These tests proved the concept. The hearing officer was not persuaded … Continue reading IDA Limited Et Al v University of Southampton Et Al (Patent): IPO 31 Mar 2004

IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Rodney Stock, it was found that Rodney Stock should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published application and for … Continue reading Rodney Stock v Pixar (Patent): IPO 1 Oct 2003

Burden of proof, Entitlement, Inventorship, Jurisdiction, Orders – One of the co-applicants for the PCT application (Mr Khemka) referred questions of inventorship and entitlement on forty applications derived from the PCT application. There was no domestic GB application. The hearing officer found that he did not have jurisdiction under sections 8 and 37 (section 9 … Continue reading Sheel Khemka v Nana-Akoto Osei (Patent): IPO 19 Sep 2003

As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Julious L Willett, it was found that Julious L Willett should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the patent granted and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent. Judges: Mrs S Williams … Continue reading Willett v Biotechnology Research Development Corporation (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2002

IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Autoliv Development AB, it was found that Bertil Mattson should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent and directed that an addendum slip be prepared mentioning him as a joint inventor for the published patent … Continue reading Autoliv Development Ab, Karl-Erik Tommy Andersson, Jan Ulrik Odenmo, Ola Bostrom and Bertil Mattson (Patent): IPO 23 Nov 2006

As a result of an uncontested application filed under section 13(1) by Pinchas Goldstein, it was found that Pinchas Goldstein should be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted for the invention and and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published application of the … Continue reading Pinchas Goldstein v Diamond and Jewelry-4-U Ltd (Patent): IPO 3 Dec 2001

IPO The patent concerned a non-woven fabric used primarily for wound dressing. The parties had discussed such a wound dressing in 1993, and in 1994 a company was formed to carry on the business of development and production of wound dressings, with the parties as shareholders. The defendant was managing director and had approached a … Continue reading Chan v Jeffcoat (Patent): IPO 20 Jun 2001

IPO The registered proprietor sought to have a late-filed statutory declaration admitted in evidence in support of its applications for amendment and correction. In proceedings which had been running some time, the HO decided that the proprietor had not discharged the onus on it to demonstrate that the nature of the fresh evidence and the … Continue reading Baker Hughes Incorporated v Halliburton Energy Services Inc (Patent): IPO 2 Jan 2001

PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions – In an EP patent that had been found bad for lack of novelty and obviousness (see Decision O/147/97) an opportunity for amendment was given. When the applicant tried to take advantage of this opportunity, the proposed amendments were opposed, initially by Morgan only and subsequently by both Morgan … Continue reading Kaiser v Morgan and Schmidt: IPO 14 Aug 2000

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Beertech UK Limited originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007. An uncontested application was also filed by Beertech UK Limited under section 13(3). It was found that Narendra Patel should … Continue reading Beertech UK Limited, Jolley, Comerford and Patel (Patent): IPO 26 Nov 2008

Judges: Floyd J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat), [2012] RPC 13 Links: Bailii Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Citing: Appeal from – Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Limited (Patent) IPO 23-Dec-2010 IPO The invention concerned a system for monitoring an electronic communication on the internet such as a chat room, e.g. being used by a … Continue reading Re Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Ltd: PatC 26 Oct 2011

The claimant sought statutory compensation, having whilst employee of the defendant, created a pump which came to widely used in the testing of diabetic status. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), [2014] RPC 29, [2014] WLR(D) 242 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Patents Act 1977 41(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – … Continue reading Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: PatC 23 May 2014

A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s right to the invention and … Continue reading Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd: CA 22 Mar 2005

Shutz sued Werit for patent infringement, Delta for patent infringement, trade mark infringement and passing off. Both actions concerned the same subject matter, namely intermediate bulk containers, otherwise known as IBCs, and the same patents. Shutz was the exclusive licensee of the three patents in suit and the second defendant in each case was the … Continue reading Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK: PatC 23 Jan 2009

An uncontested application was filed by Power-Sprays Limited, originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Glyn Andrew Bosley should also be mentioned as a joint inventor in any patent granted … Continue reading Power-Sprays Limited, Ian G White and Glyn Andrew Bosley (Patent): IPO 18 Jun 2008

The claimant sought to pursue its licence claim after its claim to a proprietary interest in the patent had been dismissed. Held: The claim misunderstood the way section 37 worked. To have a claim to a license the license the claimant had to show some proprietary interest. The grant of a licence was not to … Continue reading Cinpres Gas Injection Limited v Melea Limited: ChD 23 Nov 2006

The claimant held patents in respect of certain CD cassette boxes. It alleged infringement. Robert Walker LJ considered the meaning of ‘makes’ in the context of such proceedings. First, the word ‘makes’ must be given a meaning which, as a matter of ordinary language, it can reasonably bear. Secondly, it is not a term of … Continue reading Cartonneries De Thulin SA v CTP White Knight Ltd: CA 25 May 2000

PO Designs – Designs/Design Right Decisions Judges: Mr P Hayward Citations: O/129/04 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – NIC Instruments Limited v P W Allen And Company Limited PO 29-Jan-2004 PO Designs – Designs/Design Right Decisions . . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be … Continue reading NIC Instruments Limited v P W Allen And Company Limited: PO 11 May 2004

In a claim for infringement of a patent, where variations on a patent were to be considered, the court should look to the three tests set down in Improver (‘the Protocal questions’), and the claim should be interpreted in a purposive and contextual way. The court should ask if the variation was material, would the … Continue reading Wheatley, Bortec Limited v Drillsafe Limited, Force Group Services Plc, Foster, Foster, Carter, Davies: CA 25 Jul 2000

cw Inter Partes Decisions – Patents Judges: Mrs S Williams Citations: GB 2323411, O/120/02 Links: PO Statutes: Patents Act 1977 13(1) Intellectual Property Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.177152

The claimant said that the defendant had, through its members visiting their premises, breached the licence under which they entered, by taking photographs and distributing them on the internet, and in so doing also infringing the performance rights of the claimant. Held: On breach of confidence, the parties had an arguable cases on each side, … Continue reading Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (T/A Amazing Animals) and Another v Captive Animals Protection Society: ChD 20 May 2016

These proceedings raise, for the first time in the courts of the United Kingdom, the question how the concepts of sufficiency and infringement are to be applied to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound. Four issues arose: (i) the construction of the claims (in particular, Claim 3 as … Continue reading Warner-Lambert Company Llc v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) and Another: SC 14 Nov 2018

The applicant had devised a new and better algorithm for finding square roots. Having embodied the method in a read only chip which could be installed within a computer which could then apply the algorithm, he sought to patent it. Held: Allowing the appeal and finding that it was not patentable the court found the … Continue reading Gale’s Application: CA 1991

Appeal from dismissal of application for revocation of patent. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony MR, Jacob, Richards LJJ [2009] EWCA Civ 1362, (2010) 33(2) IPD 33007, [2010] RPC 9 Bailii England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Actavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019 The court considered: ‘the application of … Continue reading Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly and Company Ltd: CA 18 Dec 2009

Held: The court must answer a relatively simple question of fact: was it obvious to the skilled but unimaginative addressee to make a product or carry out a process falling within the claim Lord Justice Moore-Bick Lord Justice Lewison And Lord Justice Kitchin [2012] EWCA Civ 1234, [2013] RPC 27 Bailii England and Wales Cited … Continue reading MedImmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd: CA 10 Oct 2012

IPO The invention related to linking a software application that is pre-installed on a client device with a user account, thereby enabling certain acts to be carried out in relation to that application such as updating or reinstalling the application, or installing the application on another client device associated with the user account. A check … Continue reading Apple Inc (Patent): IPO 15 Mar 2016

IPO UK patent application GB2502133 was applied for in the name of WTL Technologies Limited and names Len Maxwell as the sole inventor. Ian Dennis Thirkell made an application under section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977 to the effect that Len Maxwell should not be mentioned as inventor, together with a further application under … Continue reading Thirkell, WTL Technologies Limited, Maxwell (Patent): IPO 29 Jan 2016

The question was what was meant by ‘application’ in section 2(3): the request, or the document. It was crucial, because if it meant the document it would have counted as prior art, and would have been novelty-destroying; but if it meant the request, it would not have done because the request had been withdrawn and … Continue reading Woolard, Re A Patent Application: PatC 12 Apr 2002

IPO Excluded fields (refused) – The invention relates to a system for generating electronic security documents on a computing system. The invention provides a new method for generating and storing a security document in a multi-node network in which the document is assigned a unique document identifier including amongst other things a process identifier, and … Continue reading Recipero Ltd (Patent): IPO 23 Dec 2014

IPO An uncontested application was filed by the patent agents of the proprietor Zytronic Displays Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Stephen Ormston and Philip Rudland should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Andrew Morrison in the published patent application and granted patent … Continue reading Zytronic Displays Limited, Morrison, Ormston and Rudland (Patent): IPO 30 Dec 2014

IPO This was a Decision on costs following an earlier substantive Decision on entitlement in favour of the defendants. The lack of representation of the claimant prior to the week before the hearing was noted. An award on the scale was made to the defendant, taking this into account. Mr J Elbro [2014] UKIntelP o33614, … Continue reading Surinder Pal Kaur and Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Guang-Hui Zhao should be mentioned as the sole inventor in relation to the granted patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as … Continue reading Wonderland Nurserygoods Company Limited, Jian-Qun Li and Guang-Hui Zhao (Patent): IPO 31 Jul 2014

IPO The application relates to a method of computationally modelling production from a subterranean region with reference to a wellbore and surrounding formation, such as may be encountered in oil and gas exploration and production. The modelling typically provides simulations which predict the flow of oil, water and/or gas flow from a formation, using a … Continue reading Senergy Holdings Limited (Patent): IPO 4 Feb 2015

Entitlement, Inventorship – This was an action brought by the wife and successor-in-title of one of the joint inventors against the other to remove him as both a joint inventor and co-owner. The patent concerned a standalone LED display interconnectable with itself which shows an editable picture. The hearing officer held that the attempts by … Continue reading Surinder Palkaur v Bhupinder Seran (Patent): IPO 30 May 2014

IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Funky Moves Ltd under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Thomas David Binnie should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Ralf Kinnert in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and … Continue reading Funky Moves Ltd, Kinnert and Binnie (Patent): IPO 5 Jun 2014

IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor E.V. Offshore Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Matthew Gibson-Ford should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Jonathan Thursby and Shaun Peck in the published patent application for the invention and directed … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Jonathan Thursby, Shaun Peck and Matthew Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 12 Jun 2014

IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by Patrick Gaillard under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Patrick Gaillard should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Adrian Bunce and Andrew Fusellier in the published patent application and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him … Continue reading Dynex Technologies, Inc, Bunce, Fusellier and Gaillard (Patent): IPO 26 Jun 2014

IPO Inventorship – An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor E.V. Offshore Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Matthew Gibson-Ford should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Jonathan Thursby and Shaun Peck in the published patent application and granted patent for the … Continue reading EV Offshore Limited, Thursby, Peck and Gibson-Ford (Patent): IPO 10 Jun 2014

Amendment, Entitlement – A request to amend the defendant’s counterstatement was opposed by the claimants. The hearing officer exercised his discretion in line with the overriding principle to deal with the case justly and allowed the amendment. Mr P Slater [2014] UKIntelP o22414, GB2421687 Bailii Patents Act 1977 13 37 England and Wales Intellectual Property … Continue reading Susan Grant v Teifion Emlyn James (Patent): IPO 22 May 2014

B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied saying that the claims failed for obviousness. Features of the nebulizer were admittedly old and well known, but the claimant asserted a new mechanism which reduced the size of the droplets, increasing its efficiency. Held: The patent was invalid for obviousness. Laddie J set … Continue reading Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2): ChD 1996

IPO An uncontested decision was filed by La Cotiere Grand-Large under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Eric Glorieux should be mentioned as the sole inventor in relation to the granted EP(UK) patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as … Continue reading La Cotiere Grand Large, Manuel Brandenberg and Eric Glorieux (Patent): IPO 6 Feb 2014

Contractor and Client Copyrights The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract. Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct contribution to the words appearing in the eventual published item. … Continue reading Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc: PatC 18 Mar 1998

. .

Request for declaration of non-infringement of and for revocation of patents.
Held: Even if provisions are not listed in s130(7), it is undesirable for provision in our domestic law which in fact do correspond to provisions in the EPC to be . .

The patentees had two patents relating to parts of oil rigs, coming into play to clean drill bits of cuttings on retraction. The defendants sold re-conditioned frames for this process.
Held: Where the apparent exercise of a right of repair . .

IPEC An application under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007 was filed by Dr Peter Vincent Smallwood to mention Dr Peter Vincent Smallwood and Jonathan Hibbard as joint inventors. Robert Timothy Gros, the patent . .

The court should incline towards patentability in the case of computer programs: ‘I am anxious that these exclusions are not given too wide a scope. All modern industry depends upon programmed computers, and one must be astute not to defeat patents . .