Walton v Potter and Horsfall: 18 Nov 1841

Tindal CJ told the jury that they had to decide whether the defendant’s product was ‘perfectly distinct’ from the patented product, or whether it varied ‘only in certain circumstances, which are not material to the principle and substance of the invention’.
[1841] EngR 1093, (1841) 3 Man and G 411, (1841) 133 ER 1203 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEli 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: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.309271