Section 70 of the UK’s 1977 Patents Act “the Act” (as shown below) creates a cause of action against a party that issues groundless threats of patent infringement: (1) Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with…
The final week in July is always a busy time in the English Courts as Judges try to hand down judgments before the commencement of the summer vacation which lasts approximately two months. 2013 was no exception with three important patent decisions being given this week– two from the Court of Appeal on the same…
And Carissa Kendall-Palmer This piece follows from two previous postings to this blog by Robert Lundie Smith on the Nokia/HTC/IPCom FRAND litigation before the High Court of England and Wales (here and here). This latest update, for which Robert is joined by colleague Carissa Kendall-Palmer, explains how the joint trial of FRAND issues in the…
It could be argued that 2013 is proving to be somewhat unkind to UK patentees when it comes to the issues of sufficiency and priority. On 25 June 2013, in a typically comprehensive judgment running to some 90 pages, Arnold J held that Janssen’s patent was invalid for insufficiency. The relevant facts were as follows:…
Judgments from the English Courts are nowadays usually delivered in draft form and in strictest confidence from the Judge’s clerk to the parties by way of an attachment to an email. This invariably causes an anxious lawyer to open the document and to hit “Ctrl/End” to find the conclusion of the Court, followed by a…
And Richard Pratt Swarovski-Optik KG v Leica Camera AG [2013] EWHC 1227 Summary At the Patents Court before Vos J, Swarovski-Optik brought patent infringement proceedings against Leica Camera, who challenged the validity of Swarovski’s patent. The patent related to riflescopes. The judgment focused on the importance of identifying the skilled person and defining the correct…
and Fergus Tyrrell. Despite recent guidance, the UK High Court has deemed it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that seeks to clarify what is meant by a “human embryo”, highlighting an uncertainty that exists in relation to the patenting of stem cells. The case ([2013]…
On 21 May 2013, the Court of Appeal issued its rejection of Lilly’s appeal in relation to Actavis’ purported service of an application for a Declaration of Non Infringement (DNI) in respect of not only the UK designation of Lilly’s European Patent relating to a particular salt form of pemetrexed (“the Patent”), but also the…
In its decision of 22 April*, the UK High Court (Mr Justice Arnold) has dismissed Nestec’s** claims that Dualit has infringed EP (UK) 2 103 236 (“the patent”) by supplying its own branded “NX Café Caps” coffee capsules which are compatible with Nestec’s Nespresso coffee machines, thus paving the way for new entrants into the…
On 12 April 2013, Mr Justice Arnold gave judgment in the English High Court in Resolution Chemicals Limited v H Lundbeck A/S ([2013] EWHC 739 (Pat)). Resolution (a generic supplier company) sought revocation of Lundbeck’s SPC/GB02/049 (the “SPC”) for escitalopram, alleging invalidity of the basic patent EP (UK) 0 347 066 (“the 066 patent”). Although…
