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 obviousness, and the test remained to be performed as to whether the bringing together of the two ideas, and a case involving collocation should be treated in the same way as the Windsurfing case, the question is whether it will be obvious to the skilled man, using his common general knowledge, to combine those concepts. The test for a joint tortfeasor was that each defendant should commit a tort himself. A mere supplier of goods without input or control as to what was done with them was not liable. It was artificial to regard as an importer of goods one who had no legal or beneficial interest in them. The patent was valid but Meneghetti had not imported the products.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The underlying concept for joint tortfeasance must be that the joint tortfeasor has been so involved in the commission of the tort as to make himself liable for the tort. Unless he has made the infringing act his own, he has not himself committed the tort. That notion seems to us what underlies all the decisions to which we were referred. If there is a common design or concerted action or otherwise a combination to secure the doing of the infringing acts, then each of the combiners has made the act his own and will be liable.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
Times 24-Jul-2002, [2003] RPC 264, [2002] EWCA Civ 976, [2002] All ER (D) 160
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Appeal from – Sabaf Spa v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Managhetti Spa ChD 31-Jul-2001
The claimant owned a patent on certain features of a cooking hob, and complained that the defendants had imported infringing designs. The defendant challenged the patent for obviousness.
Held: Both of the inventive features relied upon to . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Sabaf Spa v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Managhetti Spa ChD 31-Jul-2001
The claimant owned a patent on certain features of a cooking hob, and complained that the defendants had imported infringing designs. The defendant challenged the patent for obviousness.
Held: Both of the inventive features relied upon to . .
Appeal from – SABAF Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others; Sabaf Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others HL 14-Oct-2004
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: . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another AdCt 25-Jun-2012
The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Approved – Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S CA 2-Aug-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Torts – Other
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174417