The parties disputed whether there had been an infringement of the claimant’s patent in respect for ‘intermediate bulk containers’ designed for the safe transport of liquids in bulk. They were a cage holding a plastic bottle. The defendant had a trade in supplying replacement bottles. The claimant said that these infringed its patents, and would damage its reputation if losses occurred as a result of incidents with lesser quality materials.
Held: Werit’s appeal succeeded. The replacements did not amount to a ‘making’ of the patented article within section 60(1)(a) of the 1970 Act. The word ‘make’ does not have a precise meaning, and its use must be adapted practically to each particular context, within the range of meanings it can properly and reasonably
Whilst ‘complete consistency of approach’ between different national courts of the EPC states ‘is not a feasible or realistic possibility at the moment’, nonetheless ‘it is sensible for national courts at least to learn from each other and to seek to move towards, rather than away from, each other’s approaches’.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr
[2013] UKSC 16, UKSC 2011/0159, UKSC 2011/0266, [2013] Bus LR 565, [2013] RPC 16, [2013] 3 Costs LO 500, [2013] 2 All ER 177
Bailii Summary, Bailii, SC Summary, SC Summary, SC, SC
Patents Act 1977 60(1) 68
England and Wales
Citing:
At Patents Court 1 – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK PatC 23-Jan-2009
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. . .
Cited – United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd HL 21-Jul-2000
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 . .
At CA (1) – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd CA 29-Mar-2011
. .
Cited – Solar Thompson v Barton CA 1977
The parties disputed whether the defendant had a right to repair his equipment manufactured by the plaintiff under its patent.
Held: There was an implied licence to repair. However, the real issue was whether the defendants had made a ‘new . .
Cited – United Wire Limited v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Limited; Howlett etc CA 27-Jul-1999
When the court looked at whether the repair of a patented article was an infringement, the court would better achieve its required answer by asking whether the works amounted to a manufacture of the patented article, rather than a repair. The . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Prince Earnest Augustus of Hanover HL 1957
‘legislative antecedents’ may in some circumstances constitute relevant background for the interpretation of statutes in pari materia. Words in a preamble cannot of themselves restrict the scope of enacting words, where the latter are wider or more . .
Cited – Cartonneries De Thulin SA v CTP White Knight Ltd CA 25-May-2000
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The issue raised on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether three products manufactured by Actavis would infringe a patent whose proprietor is Lilly, namely European Patent (UK) No 1 313 508, and its corresponding designations in France, Italy and . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471645