The patent holder had complained of imports of infringing items by the respondent, who in turn challenged the patent for obviousness. The Court of Appeal had rejected the rule of colocation as inconsistent with the test in Windsurfing.
Held: The colocation test was a proper part of the law. It was necessary to first identify the invention for which the patent was sought. ‘Two inventions do not become one invention because they are included in the same hardware. A compact motor car may contain many inventions, each operating independently of each other but all designed to contribute to the overall goal of having a compact car. That does not make the car a single invention.’ Infringement was not established. Though the question of infringement did not strictly arise, Meneghettis had not themselves imported the goods, even though they made the arrangements.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2004] UKHL 45
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another CA 11-Jul-2002
The appellant challenged dismissal of its claim for patent infringement. The judge had held that the design was obvious, involving essentially only the collocation of two known features.
Held: Collocation was no more than a species of . .
Cited – British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd HL 1835
The House described the law governing the bring together of two elements to form a patentable invention: ‘a mere placing side by side of old integers so that each performs its own proper function independently of any of the others is not a . .
Cited – Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Limited CA 1985
Testing Validity of a Patent
A patent was challenged where the windsurf board had been shown as a primitive prototype to have been built and used in public by a twelve year old boy. The court set out the four steps required to be taken when ascertaining the validity of a . .
Cited – Waterford Wedgwood Plc and Another v David Vagli Ltd and Another, Haughton Third Party ChD 13-May-1998
The sellers had supplied counterfeit Waterford crystal to a buyer in New York, arranging for the goods to be shipped from Ireland to Spain and then from Spain to Felixstowe, where they were transhipped and sent to New York. The question was whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216436