The Patents Court found Emson’s patents for an expandable garden hose obvious in light of a piece of prior art relating to a self-elongating hose for supplying oxygen to an oxygen mask for aviation crew. In its judgment, the Court considered in detail the law on public prior use, in particular whether separate instances of…
The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant fortification of a cross-undertaking for damages where the injunction had been discharged. Further, the Court held that even if it had jurisdiction to do so, the evidence as to Napp’s financial position did not justify fortification of the cross-undertaking. Case date: 15 April 2019 Case number:…
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to treat the judge’s failure to appreciate the logical consequence of a particular finding as an error of principle which allowed an appellate court to carry out its own evaluation. Therefore the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment…
The Court rejected a claim that a new action brought by the claimant asserting additional patents from its portfolio was an abuse of process, finding that a radical change in position by the defendant had driven the need for the claimant to bring an action on other patents. Case date: 17 April 2019 Case number:…
The Court of Appeal allowed ZyXEL’s appeal, finding that in light of its waiver of its RAND licence rights, declaratory relief to determine the scope and terms of the licence which TQD was bound to offer to the two ZyXEL parties would no longer serve a useful purpose. Case date: 18 July 2019 Case number:…
The Court of Appeal dismissed Synthon’s appeal against the Patent Court’s finding that the patent in suit did involve an inventive step over the prior art, and Teva’s appeal against the Court’s finding that certain claims of the patent were invalid for added matter. Case date: 21 March 2017 Case number: [2017] EWCA Civ 148…
In a summary assessment of costs, where the parties had drawn up and agreed costs budgets prior to trial, the Court confirmed that each phase of the budget was to be considered separately and two phases could not be combined where one was overspent and the other was underspent. The budget was a guideline which…
The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the patent in suit lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art. The Court confirmed, following Halliburton v Smith, that despite the fact the parties had reached a confidential settlement and Sony was not involved in the appeal, it was necessary to hear the…
The Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court that the patent in suit was novel and inventive over the prior art. In construing the numerical ranges of the patent, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the purpose of a comparative example is that identifies something outside the claimed invention…
Applying the so-called ‘Actavis Questions’ (further to the Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly), the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion from the Patents Court on the issue of infringement. However, as the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance Court’s decision that the patent was invalid, this ultimately did not change…
