Under the doctrine of equivalents a patentee may raise a claim of infringement even though the allegedly infringing product does not literally fulfil all features of the claim. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of an invention by changing minor or insubstantial details while retaining the same functionality. Internationally, the criteria for determining equivalents vary. For example, German courts apply a three-step test known as Schneidmesser’s questions. In the UK, the equivalence doctrine was most recently discussed in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK in July 2017. In the US, the function-way-result test is used.
On 13 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the Munich Local Division’s decision in SES v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024) that a preliminary injunction should be refused on the basis that there was not sufficient certainty that certain models of Hanshow’s electronic label products infringe SES’ patent. SES is the registered proprietor of the…
Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments [2024] EWHC 898 (Pat) On 23 April 2024, Mr Justice Meade handed down his judgment in the dispute between Advanced Cell Diagnostics (ACD) and Molecular Instruments (MI). ACD is the proprietor of two European patents which relate to in situ detection of nucleic acids in single cells. EP (UK)…
On 25 October 2023, HHJ Hacon (sitting as a High Court Judge), rendered his judgment in Philip Morris v Nicoventures[1]. The Claimants (“PMI”) sought revocation of EP (UK) No. 3 367 830 B1 (“EP 830”) and the defendants (“BAT”) counterclaimed for infringement. EP 830 was held to be invalid for lack of inventive step and…
On the last day of the AIPPI World Congress in Istanbul, a packed-out room of attendees was treated to a UPC mock trial. The illustrious judging panel featured three UPC judges, with Edger Brinkman as Presiding Judge joined by Peter Tochtermann and Petri Rinkinen. The mock scenario concerned an application for a preliminary injunction (PI)…
Introduction On 17 July 2023, the English Court of Appeal handed down its decision in a dispute between J.C. Bamford (JCB) and Manitou about the confidentiality of information disclosed in the course of litigation between JCB and Manitou relating to the validity and infringement of certain of JCB’s patents. At the heart of the confidentiality…
Everything flows, and the Dutch cross-border injunction flows like no other. From its source in the The Hague all the way to the cradle of Europe: Greece. So decided the Dutch Courts in the Novartis vs. Pharmathen case. The willingness of the Dutch Courts to assume jurisdiction to grant cross-border relief in international patent cases…
On 24 August 2022, Nicholas Caddick QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) handed down his decision in Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC), a case on open topped washbowls made from moulded paper pulp, such as those used in hospitals, care homes…
On 4 August 2022, the English Patents court handed down its decision in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd v The NOCO Company, a case on battery-powered car jump starters. The decision of Mr Justice Meade is of particular interest as it addresses experts and hindsight, the third limb of the Actavis questions on the doctrine…
Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou). The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…
As reported in last week’s post, on 20 January 2021 Birss J handed down what may be his last first instance decision before his elevation to the Court of Appeal. The first post on the judgment considered the issues of identifying the skilled person, insufficiency and infringement. This second part considers the decision relating to…
