The claimant’s action for patent infringement had been dismissed on the basis that the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Held: There was material before the judge on which he could properly conclude as he did on the presence of common general knowledge. He had not been shown to have made any error of principle, and his conclusion on obviousness was upheld. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Scott Baker And Sir Martin Nourse
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 952
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Seb S A v De’longhi Spa, De’longhi Limited ChD 26-Jul-2002
The judge dismissed an action for patent infringement on the basis that the patent in suit was invalid for obviousness, though he held that, had the Patent been valid, it would have been infringed by all of the alleged infringements. . .
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 – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .
Cited – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Cited – Panduit Corporation v Band-It Company Limited CA 25-Apr-2002
The second step of Windsurfing requires the judge to adopt the mantle of the skilled person. This is particularly important where, as in this case, the attack upon the patent is based upon what was generally known in the art. . .
Cited – Molnlycke AB v Procter and Gamble Ltd CA 1994
The court said that in patents cases, the primary evidence will be the opinion evidence of properly qualified expert witnesses, all other evidence being secondary to that primary evidence. . .
Cited – Beloit Technologies Inc ; Beloit Walmsley Limited v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc and Valmet Paper Machinery (Uk) Limited CA 12-Feb-1997
The court remarked, in patents cases, on the difficulty in differentiating between common general knowledge and what is known only by some, and the need to bear in mind that the notional skilled addressee is the ordinary man who might not have the . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Seb S A v De’longhi Spa, De’longhi Limited ChD 26-Jul-2002
The judge dismissed an action for patent infringement on the basis that the patent in suit was invalid for obviousness, though he held that, had the Patent been valid, it would have been infringed by all of the alleged infringements. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184264