The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness.
Judges:
Floyd J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2311 (Pat)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Tire and Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd CA 1971
Degree of Novelty Required before patent grant
The court set out the test for novelty required to be established before a patent could properly be granted: ‘To determine whether a patentee’s claim has been anticipated by an earlier publication it is necessary to compare the earlier publication . .
Cited – Union Carbide Corporation v BP Chemicals Limited ChD 31-Jul-1997
The parties disputed the validity of patents concerning the processes for producing polymers.
Held: The patents were upheld. Jacob J explained the nature of invention underlying the right to apply for a patent: ‘Invention can lie in finding . .
Cited – Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd HL 1982
The plaintiffs had been established as market leaders with their patented construction, had ample production capacity and stocks, but had never granted any licence under their patent. The patent was for a novel type of galvanised steel lintel, which . .
Cited – Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Ltd ChD 1989
Protocol Tests For Onbviousness Set Out
The invention was based upon the discovery that an arcuate rod with slits, when rotated at high speed, would take the hair off the skin by means of the opening and closing of the slits. The claim was to a rod in the form of an ‘helical spring’ but . .
Cited – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
Cited – Rockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited) CA 1-Apr-2004
. .
Cited – Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others PatC 21-Jul-2005
A claim was made for a method of design in which certain calculations were to be carried out recursively, modifying the results each time until a particular criterion was satisfied. Though the method was susceptible of solution by computer, but the . .
Cited – Comsafe Engineering v Emtunga (UK) Limited 1999
The court interpreted the phrase ‘full particulars of the product or process alleged to infringe’ in the context of the disclosure-avoidance provision in the former Order 104 rule 11 as ‘particulars sufficient to enable all issues of infringement to . .
Cited – H Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Ltd and others CA 10-Apr-2008
The court heard an appeal against a finding that a patent for a chemical compound was invalid for insufficiency.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Enough information to ‘work the invention’ meant in order to make the product. . .
Cited – Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and Another CA 22-Jun-2007
The patentee had invented a method for storing CDs. The patentee sought leave to appeal a finding that its patent was invalid, and if successful, to appeal a finding that the defendant’s apparatus was not infringing.
Held: The application for . .
Cited – Rockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited) CA 1-Apr-2004
. .
Cited – Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and others PatC 21-Jun-2006
. .
Cited – Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S PatC 4-May-2007
Kitchin J said: ‘The question of obviousness must be considered on the facts of each case. The court must consider the weight to be attached to any particular factor in the light of all the relevant circumstances. These may include such matters as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.276712