Source: http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/united-kingdom/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 08:49:08
Document Index: 610229376

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 24', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 24', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

EPLAW Patent Blog: United Kingdom EPLAW Patent Blog
United Kingdom 30/11/2015
UK – Warner-Lambert v Sandoz
Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Sandoz GmBH, Sandoz Limited and Lloyds Pharmacy Limited, England and Wales Patents Court (Arnold J), London, UK, 4 November 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 3153 (Pat)This judgment concerned an application for an interim injunction restraining Sandoz from any further dealing in its full label generic pregabalin product and Lloyds from dispensing the quantities of that product that it had acquired prior to the grant of a temporary restraining order by Birss J. The interim injunction was granted by Arnold J and will remain in force until determination of infringement at an expedited trial or final determination of validity of the patent in suit in proceedings between Warner-Lambert on the one hand and Actavis and Mylan on the other. Continue reading "UK – Warner-Lambert v Sandoz" » 30/11/2015 in Infringement, Skinny label, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Teva v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Teva UK Limited v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH, High Court of England and Wales (Morgan J), London UK, 21 October 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2963 (Pat).
Boehringer Ingelheim’s proposed amendments to claims 5 and 6 of European Patent (UK) 1 379 220 (the “Patent”) for the use of a hydroxypropylmethylcellulose ("HPMC") capsule of a certain moisture content for the delivery of tritropium bromide in a dry inhaler was refused as the amended claims were not inventive. In particular, the specification of certain moisture levels in the claims was arbitrary and could not save the claims where the suggestion to use HPMC capsules was in itself obvious.
The Patent covers capsules to be used in a dry powder inhaler for the purpose of delivering tiotropium bromide to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) or asthma. Teva commenced a revocation action in June 2014 primarily on the basis of lack of inventive step. During the course of proceedings Boehringer applied for permission, pursuant to section 75 of the Patents Act 1977, to unconditionally amend the Patent claims. Continue reading "UK - Teva v. Boehringer Ingelheim" » 16/11/2015 in Amendments, Inventive step, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Merck v Ono Pharmaceutical / Bristol Myers Squibb Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited v Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Limited & another, and Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Limited & another v Merck & Co. Inc. & another, High Court (Patents Court), Mr Justice Birss, 22 October 2015 The UK Patents Court has upheld the validity of Ono’s patent EP (UK) 1 537 878 (under which BMS is an exclusive licensee), which concerns antibodies to the PD-1 receptor for the treatment of all cancers. Ono and BMS alleged that Merck’s anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which it proposes to market as a treatment for unresectable/metastatic melanoma, infringed the patent. Merck accepted that if the patent was valid, its product fell within the scope of the claims. Merck raised a wide variety of attacks on the patent, including added matter, insufficiency, loss of priority, anticipation and obviousness. Ono admitted that if priority was lost, the claims were invalid. Ono further stated that it would not seek an injunction in the UK if its claim to infringement was successful. Interestingly, the judge held that plausibility forms part of the law of novelty as part of the enablement assessment. In this case, the question was whether the prior art plausibly enabled the claimed therapeutic effect. This issue is frequently raised in cases concerning second medical use claims where there is an issue of whether the disclosure of the therapeutic effect in the prior art is sufficient to be novelty destroying. Birss J’s approach can be contrasted with the approach of Arnold J in Hospira v Genentech [2015] EWHC 1796 (Pat) in which this issue was instead dealt with by asking whether the claimed therapeutic effect was properly disclosed in the prior art (i.e. you must know from the prior art that the claimed therapeutic effect will be obtained). Other interesting aspects of the judgment include how the judge dealt with Merck’s plausibility attack (which was raised under the heads of priority, sufficiency and AgrEvo obviousness) and his analysis of whether the invention was ‘obvious to try’.
Continue reading "UK - Merck v Ono Pharmaceutical / Bristol Myers Squibb " » 05/11/2015 in Invalidity, Novelty, Obviousness, Sufficiency, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Richard Perry v. Brundle Richard Perry v F H Brundle (a private unlimited company), Betafence Limited and Britannia Fasteners Limited, England and Wales High Court (HHJ Hacon), London, UK, 25 September 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2737 (IPEC) The Defendants, F H Brundle and others, brought an action to strike out a claim in its entirety or for a summary judgment in their favour. They also applied for an extended civil restraint order (‘CRO’) against the Claimant, Mr Perry, or, in the alternative, a limited CRO. HHJ Hacon struck out the proceedings on two grounds, although one would have sufficed. The first was that the cause of action vested in the Official Receiver, not the Claimant. The second was that the claim was res judicata. HHJ Hacon also considered whether he could grant a CRO, which he eventually did, discussing the jurisdiction of the IPEC in the process, as well as the circumstances in which one ought to be granted.
Continue reading "UK - Richard Perry v. Brundle " » 28/10/2015 in United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Fontem Holdings 1BV v Ten Motives Fontem Holdings 1BV and Fontem Ventures -v- Ten Motives Limited and 10 Motives Limited, UK Patents Court (Mr Justice Norris), 2 October 2015
The Claimants (Fontem) has commenced patent infringement proceedings against a number of defendants, including 10 Motives, Nicocigs, JT International SA and Zandera. The infringement and related revocation actions are due to be heard together in May 2016. The actions all involve electronic cigarettes, a rapidly growing market.10 Motives applied to the Patents Court for summary judgment of the infringement claim against them, alternatively a stay of the infringement claim pending the outcome of an opposition at the EPO. Summary judgment in patent proceedings in the UK has traditionally been difficult to obtain, given that the Court must decide what the words of the patent mean to the skilled person, regarding which expert evidence is usually relied upon. In this case the judge decided that Fontem’s infringement claim was “well arguable” and one for which expert evidence would be needed. He therefore declined to grant summary judgment.
Continue reading "UK - Fontem Holdings 1BV v Ten Motives " » 07/10/2015 in Infringement, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Rovi Guides v. Virgin Media Limited
Rovi Guides, Inc. v Virgin Media Limited & Ors., England and Wales Court of Appeal (Longmore, Lewison, Floyd LJJ), London UK, 14 July 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 781
The Court of Appeal has affirmed the decision of Mr John Baldwin QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Patents Court, to revoke Rovi’s patent which describes and claims features which allow a user to pause live television or video on demand (“live feed”) and resume watching it on a different device (a process known as “relocation”). At first instance, the patent had been held to be obvious over a single piece of prior art, the Digital Audio-Visual Council 1.3.1 Specification (DAVIC). Rovi appealed the decision in relation to the live feed relocation claims (the “live feed claims”), but not the video on demand relocation claims.
Continue reading "UK - Rovi Guides v. Virgin Media Limited" » 17/08/2015 in Invalidity, Inventive step, Rovi, United Kingdom , Virgin | Permalink
UK - Teva v. LEO Pharma
Teva UK Ltd & Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v LEO Pharma A/s, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Sir Robin Jacob, Kitchin and King LJJ), London, UK, 28 July 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 779
This is an appeal against Birss J’s finding that two LEO patents were invalid for lack of inventive step. The key claims of the patents were for a combination of the active pharmaceutical ingredients calcipotriol and betamethasone, alongside the non-aqueous solvent Arlamol E. The patents cover Leo’s Dovobet Ointment product, a dermal treatment for psoriasis.
The Court of Appeal held that Birss J had erred in his application of the law on the assessment of inventive step, thereby allowing the Court of Appeal to revisit the assessment de novo. It is worth noting that in the absence of an error of principle, the English appellate Courts will be very cautious in differing from the first instance judge’s evaluation of the question of inventive step as it is considered a kind of jury question (see the House of Lords judgment in Biogen v Medeva at paragraph 54). Sir Robin Jacob (with whom Kitchin and King LJJ agreed) returned to the bench for this appeal and delivered the leading judgment.
Continue reading "UK - Teva v. LEO Pharma" » 17/08/2015 in Invalidity, Inventive step, LEO Pharma, Teva, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - AstraZeneca v. KRKA AstraZeneca AB and Another v KRKA dd Novo Mesto and Another, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Longmore, Kitchin and Floyd LJJ), London, UK, 21 May 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 484
Continue reading "UK - AstraZeneca v. KRKA " » 10/06/2015 in AstraZeneca, Damages, KRKA, United Kingdom | Permalink
In his judgment of 21 May 2015, Birss J upheld the validity a number of claims of EP’528 and EP’924, both owned by Teva and relating to glatiramer acetate (“GA”). This was so notwithstanding that the Dutch designations of the same patents had previously been revoked (albeit with some differences in the evidence taken into account). Three of the claims of EP’924 were, however, found to be invalid for added matter. GA is a mixture of synthetic polypeptides made of four amino acids, a low molecular weight fraction of which is sold by Teva (brand name Copaxone) for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. EP’528 and EP’924, both being divisionals and differing of note only in relation to their claims, relate to improvements in the process for making GA, namely those resulting in low levels of free bromine and metal ion impurities. The claims in issue were mostly process claims for making GA or its intermediate (TFA-GA) and claims to the GA product itself (claims 22-26 of EP’924). Continue reading "UK - Synthon v. Teva" » 10/06/2015 in Added matter, Insufficiency, Invalidity, Inventive step, Novelty, Synthon, Teva, United Kingdom | Permalink
Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd vs H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd, Court of Appeal, UK, 22 May 2015 This decision was a decision of the Court of Appeal, upholding an earlier decision by Mr Justice Sales regarding the extent to which a settlement agreement compromising patent proceedings between two parties pre-empted the parties from raising invalidity arguments in subsequent proceedings. In July 2009, Stretchline initiated proceedings against H & M alleging that various brassieres H & M was selling through its stores infringed Strechline’s patent GB 2,309,038 and a corresponding US patent which related to providing a penetration barrier which prevented under wires in bras from penetrating the tubes which encase them. A mediation took place in May 2011 and the parties entered into a global settlement agreement settling the dispute between the parties with H & M agreeing to stop selling the disputed brassieres and agreeing to drop their allegations that the patents were invalid.
Continue reading "UK - Stretchline v H & M" » 02/06/2015 in H&M, Invalidity, Settlement , Stretchline, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - AP Racing v Alcon Components AP Racing Limited v Alcon Components Limited, UK, High Court (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court), HHJ Hacon, 15 May 2015 HHJ Hacon’s judgment in AP Racing v Alcon Components concerned an application to strike out AP Racing’s statement of case under CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) – ‘that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings’. In a judgment of 28 January 2014, the Court of Appeal ruled that certain specific disc brake callipers for cars produced by Alcon had infringed AP Racing’s UK Patent (No. 2 451 690) and that AP Racing was entitled to choose between an account of profits or an inquiry as to damages. Following the finding of infringement AP Racing sought disclosure to enable AP Racing to make its election between the two remedies. In doing so AP Racing asked for disclosure both for sales of brake callipers which had been the subject of the decision on infringement and other brake callipers sold by Alcon. Alcon objected. AP Racing responded by dropping its request for disclosure beyond the callipers which had been the subject of the infringement decision and then brought a separate infringement claim against Alcon in respect of the other callipers. Alcon applied for this new case to be struck out. Continue reading "UK - AP Racing v Alcon Components " » 19/05/2015 in Alcon Components, AP Racing, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - IPCom v HTC
IPCom Gmbh & Co Kg v HTC Europe Co. Ltd & others, UK, High Court (Patents Court), Birss J, 24 April 2105
Birss J’s decision in IP Com v HTC is the latest decision in the on-going dispute between IPCom, Nokia and HTC. Previously Nokia and IPCom had been involved in litigation involving EP 1 186 189, a patent which Floyd J (as he then was) found to be invalid ([2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat)), a decision which was upheld on appeal ([2011] EWCA Civ 6).The present case concerned EP 1 841 268 which was based on a divisional application of the EP’189 patent previously litigated by Nokia and IPCom. In 2011, this divisional patent EP’268 was found by Floyd J to be valid in an amended form and infringed ([2011] EWHC 1470 (Pat)), another judgement which was upheld on appeal ([2012] EWCA Civ 567). Continue reading "UK - IPCom v HTC" » 18/05/2015 in Added matter, Amendments, HTC, IPCom, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Unwired Planet International v. Huawei Technologies (FRAND)
Unwired Planet International Limited v Huawei Technologies Co. Limited, Samsung Electonics Co. Limited, Google Inc and others, UK, High Court (Patents Court), Birss J, 24 April 2015 Unwired Planet has sued Huawei, Samsung and Google in the UK Patent’s Court, alleging that the defendants have infringed five patents said by Unwired Planet to be essential to 2G, 3G and 4G standards, and a further patent that is not alleged to be essential to any standard. As well as traditional infringement and validity issues, the dispute raised complex questions of competition law. The case has been divided up into five “technical” trials, due to take place between October 2015 and June 2016, and one “non-technical” trial due to start in October 2016. The latter will consider matters of FRAND licensing, competition law, obligations under the ETSI IPR Policy and whether injunctions may be granted, and is now scheduled to last for 13 weeks. Continue reading "UK - Unwired Planet International v. Huawei Technologies (FRAND)" » 06/05/2015 in FRAND, Huawei, Standard essential patent, United Kingdom , Unwired Planet International | Permalink
UK - Everseal v Document Management Solutions
Everseal Stationery Products Ltd v Document Management Solutions Ltd and others, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, 1 April 2015, [2015] EWHC 842 (IPEC), HHJ Hacon The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has found a patent for a “mailer” (a business form, letter etc which, after completion, is folded and then sealed around the edges) to be invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness. The judge, HHJ Hacon, held that the patent was anticipated by prior use of a third party’s mailer, and it lacked inventive step over each of two US patents cited as prior art. He held that if the patent were valid it would be infringed by one of the first defendant’s mailers (no longer supplied) but not by the two other mailers (Mailers 2 and 3). Other defendants, officers of the first defendant, were alleged to be jointly liable for the first defendant’s infringements but the parties had elected that the issue of joint tortfeasance would be heard at the damages hearing if the judge’s findings were reversed on appeal. Continue reading "UK - Everseal v Document Management Solutions" » 22/04/2015 in Invalidity, Inventive step, Novelty, Obviousness, Prior use, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Warner-Lambert v Actavis
Warner-Lambert LLC v (1) Actavis Group PTC EHF, (2) Actavis UK Ltd, (3) Caduceus Pharma Ltd v National Health Service Commissioning Board (Respondent) v (1) Teva UK Ltd, (2) Generics (UK) Ltd, (3) Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd, (4) Consilient Health Ltd, (5) Sandoz Ltd, (6) Department of Health (Interested parties), Patents Court, 2 March 2015, [2015] EWHC 485 (Pat), Arnold J In a previous judgment (reported on EPLAW Patent Blog on 29 January 2015, which may be read here), the English Patents Court dismissed an application by Warner-Lambert for an interim injunction in respect of Actavis’ generic pregbalin. In this latest judgment, the Patents Court ordered a third party, the NHS Commissioning Board (“NHS England”), to issue guidance that pregbalin should be prescribed by reference to the brand name Lyrica® when prescribed for the patented indication (being neuropathic pain) and, when prescribed for non-patented indications, should be prescribed by reference to the generic name.
NHS England is to issue the guidance to the Clinical Commissioning Groups and the NHS Business Service Authority, those being the bodies responsible for providing such guidance to prescribing doctors and community pharmacies respectively. Continue reading "UK - Warner-Lambert v Actavis" » 07/04/2015 in Actavis, NHS, United Kingdom , Warner-Lamber | Permalink
Hospira (UK) Limited v Genentech, Inc., England and Wales Court of Appeal (Elias, Kitchin and Floyd), London, UK, 6 February 2015, Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 57
In this judgment the Court of Appeal in England and Wales decided a case regarding Genentech’s patent EP (UK) 1 210 115 relating to a dosing regimen for the anti-cancer drug trastuzumab (Herceptin). The Court of Appeal upheld the conclusion of the Patents Court (Birss J) that the patent was invalid for obviousness. At first instance Birss J also held that the patent was invalid for insufficiency and other grounds of invalidity based on loss of priority date, however, the Court of Appeal did not consider sufficiency or priority on appeal.
Continue reading "UK - Hospira v. Genentech" » 04/03/2015 in Dosages, Genentech, Hospira, Invalidity, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Warner Lambert v Actavis
Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd, Caduceus Pharma Ltd, Patents Court, 21 January 2015, [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat), Arnold J
The English Patents Court has refused an application made by Warner-Lambert for interim relief in respect of Actavis’ generic pregabalin medicine known as Lecaent. Pregabalin is the active ingredient in Warner-Lambert’s Lyrica medicine which is authorised to treat several conditions. Compound patent protection for pregabalin expired in 2013 but Warner-Lambert has a second medical use patent with Swiss-form claims to the treatment of pain. Arnold J refused to order the interim relief requested by Warner-Lambert on the grounds that: (i) Warner-Lambert did not have an arguable case of infringement by Actavis of its pain patent and (ii) even if there was an arguable case of infringement, he would not have granted an interim injunction on the balance of the risk of injustice. Continue reading "UK - Warner Lambert v Actavis" » 29/01/2015 in Actavis, Infringement, United Kingdom , Warner-Lamber | Permalink
UK - Lantana v. Comptroller General
Lantana Limited v Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks [2014], England and Wales Court of Appeal (Arden, Kitchin and Gloster LLJ), 13 November 2014, Case No. EWCA Civ 1463
In this judgment the Court of Appeal of England and Wales decided a case regarding a patent application for an invention consisting of a computer program relating to the retrieval of data from a remote computer to a local computer using email.
The Court of Appeal applied existing legal principles - namely the four-stage test set out in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan’s Patent Application ([2006] EWCA Civ 1371) - and considered the “signposts” summarised in HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc. ([2013] EWCA Civ 451) to uphold the conclusion reached by the Hearing Officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office and by the English Patents Court (Birss J) that the invention was not patentable as it was excluded subject matter, as a computer program “as such”, under s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977.
This decision, based on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, was predicated on the grounds that the invention was no more than the computerisation of a process that could already be done without a computer and had no relevant technical effect (i.e. it made no technical contribution to the art which was not excluded matter).
Continue reading "UK - Lantana v. Comptroller General" » 28/11/2014 in Comptroller General of Patents, Computer implemented inventions , Exclusion to patentability, Lantana, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - HTC v Gemalto HTC Corporation v Gemalto S.A., Court of Appeal, 22 October 2014, [2014] EWCA Civ 1335, Laws LJ, Floyd LJ, Vos LJThe Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Birss J that claim 3 of Gemalto’s patent (EP (UK) 0 932 865, relating to using a high level programming language with a smart card or microcontroller) was valid and not infringed by HTC’s marketing of a variety of smart phones and a tablet computer. The appeal concerned one of the three patents considered at first instance. The principal issue which Gemalto appealed was Birss J’s construction of the term "microcontroller", Gemalto claiming it was too narrow. However, although the Court of Appeal held that Birss J had erred in his construction of that term, it held that his construction was too wide and, therefore, upheld the finding that HTC’s devices did not infringe. Another issue examined by the Court of Appeal was HTC’s appeal of the decision that claim 3 of the patent was entitled to priority.
Continue reading "UK - HTC v Gemalto " » 03/11/2014 in Gemalto, HTC, Infringement, Invalidity, United Kingdom | Permalink
Nampak Plastics Europe Limited v Alpla UK Limited, UK Court of Appeal, 9 October 2014 (Briggs LJ, Floyd LJ, Macur LJ), Case No. [2014] EWCA Civ 1293
In the past applications for summary judgment in UK patent cases have rarely met with success: the Court must adopt the role of the ordinary skilled person to interpret the claims, common general knowledge and prior art, all of which requires expert evidence. However, in a recent judgment the UK Court of Appeal has issued a decision which is likely to make it easier to obtain summary judgment in certain patent cases.
Nampak is the proprietor of GB 2 494 394 which related to a design of a plastic milk container. Nampak commenced infringement proceedings in respect of Alpla’s “ECO 1” design. Alpla denied infringement and sought a declaration of non-infringement in respect of a proposed second design of the bottle, “ECO 2”. Nampak declined to give the declaration of non-infringement, and Alpla applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. In July 2014, the first instance judge (Birss J) allowed Alpla’s application and Nampak appealed, arguing that the judge was wrong to grant summary judgment without hearing expert evidence which would assist in determining issues of construction and infringement.
Continue reading "UK - Nampak v. Alpla" » 20/10/2014 in Alpla, Nampak Plastics, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Teva v Leo Pharma
Teva UK Ltd and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v LEO Pharma A/S and LEO Laboratories Ltd (Third Party), Patents Court, 6 October 2014, [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat), Birss J
The Patents Court held two Leo Pharma patents concerning a treatment for psoriasis invalid on the ground of obviousness. The case is of interest not only for the unusual way in which the obviousness attack was structured but also due to the Court’s approach to regulatory considerations when assessing obviousness.
The two patents (EP 1,178,808 and EP 2,455,083) related to an ointment treatment for psoriasis comprising a combination of a corticosteroid and a vitamin D analogue with a particular solvent. Leo Pharma has a successful product marketed in the UK as Dovobet Ointment, which is protected by both patents. Its sales are substantial. Teva wished to sell a generic version of that ointment. Teva contended that Leo Pharma’s patents were invalid on three grounds: obviousness, insufficiency and added matter. Leo Pharma applied to amend the claims of both patents and contended that the claims in their amended form were valid. Leo Pharma also contended that Teva’s proposed product would infringe the patents.
Continue reading "UK - Teva v Leo Pharma" » 15/10/2014 in LEO Pharma, Obviousness, Teva, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Velocys Inc v CompactGTL Ltd
Velocys Inc v CompactGTL Limited, UK Patents Court, 22 September 2014, [2014] EWHC 2951 (Pat)
This case raises some unusual issues regarding patent amendment. Velocys, an exclusive licensee, alleged infringement of two European patents, EP (UK) Nos. 1 206 508 and 1 206 509. The patents were almost identical specifications but with different claims and related to catalysts for use in the Fisher-Tropsch process.A key feature of claim 1 of the 508 patents was a “feed stream having a residence time within said catalyst structure less than 5 seconds”. Velocys applied to amend the patent. In the amended claim “residence time” was replaced with “contact time”. Velocys also applied to make a similar amendment to the 509 patent. Unusually the grounds for the amendment was that the reference to “residence time” was an obvious mistake. Both parties were agreed on the law: unless the references to “residence time” were an obvious mistake, amending those references to “contact time” would add matter and extend the protection conferred by the patent, with the result that the patent would be invalid. To succeed Velocys therefore had to show that the skilled person would (i) immediately appreciate that the reference to “residence time” was not intended, and (ii) unequivocally ascertain that the patentee meant to refer to “contact time”.
Continue reading "UK - Velocys Inc v CompactGTL Ltd" » 15/10/2014 in Amendments, United Kingdom , Velocys | Permalink
UK - Teva v. AstraZeneca
Teva UK Limited and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v AstraZeneca AB UK, Patents Court, Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 2873 (Pat)
The UK Patents Court has held, in a judgment handed down on 9 September 2014, that European Patent (UK) No. 1 085 877, which concerned a treatment for asthma, was invalid on the ground of obviousness. This patent had previously been held to be obvious in the light of a prior art patent (the “1993 Patent”) in opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office. That EPO decision was under appeal.
Teva contended that the 1993 Patent anticipated the patent in suit. The judge (Sales J) held that the anticipation was not made out. However, he held that the patent was obvious and that amended claims put forward by AstraZeneca would be invalid for both added matter and obviousness.
A peculiar and unusual feature of this case was that the judge substantially revised his judgment, which had been circulated to the parties in draft form prior to its public release, as is standard practice in the English High Court, when AstraZeneca pointed out that there was an error in his approach. In his original findings, the judge found that the patent was obvious over the common general knowledge alone, when the case that had been advanced by Teva relied not on common general knowledge alone but on the 1993 Patent read in the light of the common general knowledge.
Continue reading "UK - Teva v. AstraZeneca" » 24/09/2014 in Added matter, Amendments, AstraZeneca, Invalidity, Obviousness, Teva, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Abott v. Design & Display
Abbott and Chasmer v Design & Display and Eureka Display, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, UK, Case no. [2014] EWHC 2924 (IPEC) This decision concerned an assessment of an account of profits following an earlier decision that the claimants’ European Patent (UK) No. 1 816 931 was valid and infringed. Whilst the judgment is very fact specific, it does set out a useful summary of the case law applicable to accounts of profits and enquiries as to damages in the UK and their application to matters such as whether general overheads can be offset against the profits to be paid to the patentee.
Head note: Graham Burnett-Hall, Marks&Clerk Solicitors
24/09/2014 in Abbott, Damages, Design & Display Limited , United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - William Mark v. Gift House International
William Mark Corporation and China Industries Limited v Gift House International Limited, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, HH Judge Hacon, London, UK, 22 August 2014, Case No. [2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC)
In a judgment of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) handed down on 22 August 2014, the two patents in suit - UK patent no. GB 2482275 and its divisional GB 2483597 - were found valid (in full and partially, respectively) and to have been infringed by the Defendant’s importation and sale of flying fish toys known as “Mega Fliers”.
The Defendant’s invalidity attacks on both patents were based on claims of obviousness over two pieces of prior art; one of which was a full-sized airship rather than a toy – but still deemed to be read with interest by the skilled person and considered relevant.
Continue reading "UK - William Mark v. Gift House International" » 05/09/2014 in Invalidity, Obviousness, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - ASSIA v BT
Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment Inc v British Telecom Communications PLC, Patents Court, 22 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2730 (Pat), Birss J
In a decision of 22 July 2014, the Patents Court proposed new directions in a follow-on action for a declaration of non-infringement in relation to a product that had been modified following a finding of infringement. Such directions were necessary to allow amendment of the pleadings to address a point of alleged infringement relating to a different part of the system that had not been raised previously.
Continue reading "UK - ASSIA v BT" » 27/08/2014 in Infringement, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Eli Lilly v HGS / SPC
Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences Inc, Patents Court, 18 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2404 (Pat), Warren J The unenviable task of implementing the CJEU ruling in Eli Lilly v HGS (C-493/12 here, on the meaning of “protected” by a basic patent, and reported in the EPLAW Patent Blog here) fell to Warren J (who is not a patent specialist but hears the occasional patents case). Following a hearing which took place over two days in May and June 2014 (in which both parties argued strenuously the CJEU had found in their favour), in a judgment dated 18 July 2014 Warren J has refused to grant the declaration sought by Lilly that any SPC granted to HGS for Lilly’s antibody, tabalumab, (based on HGS’ patent) would be invalid. Warren J considered that the CJEU ruling was unclear and unsatisfactory in many respects. However, in his view, the most important parts of the decision were: (i) paragraph [32] where the CJEU had held that the protection conferred by a basic patent was to be assessed with reference to the “extent of the invention” covered by the patent as provided for by section 125 UK Patents Act and Article 69 EPC and (ii) paragraph [33] where the CJEU had again expressly rejected the infringement test.
Continue reading "UK - Eli Lilly v HGS / SPC" » 13/08/2014 in Eli Lilly, Human Genome Sciences, SPC, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Nampak v. Alpla Nampak Plastics Europe Limited v. Alpla UK Limited, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 3 July 2014, Case No [2014] EWHC 2196 (Pat) Nampak is the proprietor of GB 2 494 349 entitled “Plastic Container”. This judgment arises from Alpla’s application for summary judgment under CPR Part 24 on its claim for a declaration of non-infringement in respect of its “ECO2” milk container. There are still ongoing infringement proceedings between the parties concerning Alpla’s plastic milk container “ECO1”, due to be heard in January 2015. Continue reading "UK - Nampak v. Alpla " » 13/08/2014 in Alpla, Infringement, Nampak Plastics, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Actavis v Pharmacia (Part 2)
Actavis Group PTC EHF v Pharmacia LLC, Patents Court, 24 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2611 (Pat), Arnold J
As recently reported on the EPLAW Patent Blog (here), the English Patents Court had refused to stay validity proceedings relating to the UK designation of a European patent whilst opposition proceedings were on-going at the EPO, despite relatively broad undertakings offered by the patentee (Pharmacia) to the potential infringer (Actavis). Arnold J has now reconsidered Pharmacia’s request for a stay in light of the two additional undertakings it offered after release of the draft judgment of that decision. In a new judgment, handed down on 24 July 2014, Arnold J held that the additional undertakings tipped the balance in favour of a stay as they “do substantially eliminate the commercial uncertainty to which Actavis will be exposed in the United Kingdom as a result of a stay.”
Continue reading "UK - Actavis v Pharmacia (Part 2)" » 30/07/2014 in Actavis, EPO, Pharmacia, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Baillie v. Bromhead
Craig Baillie, Stephen Lambert, Jameson Technologies, Dualglo Ltd, Lacomp Plc, Lacomp Ltd and DualGlo Technology Plc v Bromhead & Co, Bromhead Johnson and Michael Spencer, High Court, 2 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2149 (Ch), Birss J
The claimants were made up of individuals who had developed some glow-in-the-dark plastics with high daytime visibility, companies set up to exploit their ideas and investors in those companies. They sued a patent attorney, Dr Spencer, and his firms, for negligence on several counts arising from: Dr Spencer’s investigative work preliminary to the prosecution of patent applications; advice given in relation to potentially relevant prior art; and advice given in relation to the possible infringement of, and commercial strategy regarding, a third party’s patent filing.
While the High Court judge, Birss J, considered a number of the claimants’ criticisms of Dr Spencer to be well-founded, for each of the pleaded particulars he held that the elements of a claim for negligence were incomplete and, therefore, the claimants’ claim failed. The defendants’ counterclaim for unpaid professional fees succeeded.
Continue reading "UK - Baillie v. Bromhead" » 30/07/2014 in United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - SDL Hair v Next Row
SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd, RMG Limited, Unil C9 Limited and Gavin Rae, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, 3 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2084 (IPEC), HHJ HaconOne question HHJ Hacon considered was the relevance of the likelihood of an event when assessing causation and quantum. The two approaches considered were: • awarding damages on a percentage basis according to the likelihood of an event occurring, once it has been established that there is a real and substantial chance (the Allied Maples type of case); and • awarding damages up to the full value of the losses claimed, once it has been established on the balance of probabilities that an event or course of trading would have occurred.
The example in this case was the promotion “Today’s Special Value” or TSV which can be run by the shopping channel QVC, one of SDL’s customers, to promote a particular product. QVC and SDL agreed to run a TSV for the hair curler product in July 2012. When QVC received a letter alleging patent infringement from Next Row’s solicitors, it cancelled this TSV. The TSV finally went ahead only in August 2013 after judgment in the case (meaning that SDL’s benefit was postponed). SDL argued, and the Court agreed, that the August 2013 TSV would have been conducted anyway in addition to a TSV in 2012. HHJ Hacon found that there was a real and substantial chance that QVC would have gone ahead with both TSVs and therefore the letter to QVC did cause loss. The value of the loss was the percentage chance that QVC would have gone ahead with two TSVs, which was assessed at 35%. SDL could recover 35% of the profits they would have made on a TSV run in 2012.
Read the entire summary after the break.
Head note: Amy Cullen
Continue reading "UK - SDL Hair v Next Row" » 30/07/2014 in Damages, SDL Hair, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Pfizer v Medimpex Jamaica
Pfizer Limited v Medimpex Jamaica Limited and another, Privy Council, 3 July 2014, [2014] UKPC 20, Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge and Sir David Kitchin
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) dismissed Pfizer’s appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica’s decision that Pfizer’s Jamaican patent for amlopidine besylate (an antihypertensive drug) was invalid. The invalidity claim had been filed by companies selling generic versions of the drug in Jamaica, which Pfizer had claimed infringed its patent. Sir David Kitchin gave the unanimous decision of the JCPC, which depended on two key issues.
One was whether the person who applied for the patent (which he later assigned to Pfizer) was doing so on his own behalf or on behalf of Pfizer (in effect, as an agent). The second related to the fact that Jamaican patent law (the Patents Act 1857) is concerned with local novelty and, therefore, allows “invention by importation” (which Sir David noted “may seem somewhat surprising to those familiar only with the provisions of the European Patent Convention” although it was a feature of UK law until 1978).
Continue reading "UK - Pfizer v Medimpex Jamaica" » 30/07/2014 in Invalidity, Pfizer, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Actavis v Pharmacia
Actavis Group PTC EHF v Pharmacia LLC, Patents Court, 11 July 2014, [2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat), Arnold J
On 11 July 2014, the Patents Court refused to stay validity proceedings relating to the UK designation of a European patent, whilst opposition proceedings are on-going at the EPO. This was despite the patentee, Pharmacia, offering undertakings: (i) to seek expedition of the EPO proceedings; (ii) not to seek an injunction against the potential infringer (Actavis) in the UK until final determination of the EPO proceedings; and (iii) only to seek damages of 1% of Actavis’ net sales during the period from launch to the determination of the EPO proceedings. Instead, the likelihood that the EPO proceedings would take significantly longer to resolve than the English case appears to have been Arnold J’s key reason for refusing the stay. This is despite Court of Appeal guidelines from IPCom v HTC in 2013 which indicate that a stay should be the default option.
Continue reading "UK - Actavis v Pharmacia" » 30/07/2014 in Actavis, EPO, Pharmacia, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Future New Developments v. B&S Patente und Marke Future New Developments Ltd. v. B&S Patente und Marke GmbH, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 9 June 2014, Case No IP 14 M 00027
The UK court has held that participation by a German entity in prior proceedings before the UK Intellectual Property Office (that is, the UK patent office) meant that the Germany entity had entered an appearance for the purpose of establishing whether the UK court had jurisdiction to determine an entitlement dispute.
Head note: Graham Burnett-Hall 25/06/2014 in Jurisdiction, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Swarovski-Optik v. Leica Camera
Swarovski-Optik KG v. Leica Camera AG & Leica Camera AG, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 15 May 2014, Case no. [2014] EWCA Civ 637
The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Patents Court, which held that Swarovski-Optik’s patent for a telescope design which provided for a wide field of view across all magnifications, was valid and infringed by Leica Camera. The Court did not permit Leica to raise additional grounds in the appeal.
BackgroundSwarovski owns European Patent (UK) no. 1 746 451, entitled “telescope with wide field of view and variable magnification” (the “Patent”). The Patent is directed to sighting telescopes or riflescopes and provides for a lens configuration which allows the user to view an area that is as large as possible across the entire range of magnification. Leica sold a range of riflescopes which were claimed to infringe the Patent: it claimed the Patent lacked novelty, was obvious over the common general knowledge and three prior art citations, was insufficient and contained added matter.
The Patent disclosed the use of a concave lens in addition to the standard arrangement of convex lenses in a telescope. This removed image curvature which appeared at lower magnifications and had the effect of reducing the field of view.
In May 2013, Mr Justice Vos rejected all of Leica’s attacks on the Patent, holding it valid and infringed (here). Leica appealed, alleging the judge had erred in his construction of the claims, and in relation to the novelty and obviousness findings. Leica also sought to raise additional grounds of appeal.
Continue reading "UK - Swarovski-Optik v. Leica Camera" » 30/05/2014 in Infringement, Invalidity, Leica, Swarovski, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Rovi v. Virgin Media
Rovi Solutions Corporation v. Virgin Media Limited, Patents Court (Chancery Division), High Court of Justice, London, UK, 15 May 20014, Case No. [2014] EWHC 1559 (Pat)
Mr Justice Mann of the Patents Court found for the defendant, Virgin Media, against Rovi in an action for infringement under EP (UK) 0 862 833.Rovi contended that Virgin Media infringed its patent relating to set top boxes (STBs) which generate a prompt on the screen inviting input from the viewer, and if that input is made then a further message is conveyed, or something else happens in the STB by way of the execution of computer code. The core of the alleged invention related to the existence of two signals which achieved the required result. The first signal, referred to as the “identification signal” was responsible for bringing about the display of an indication symbol or prompt on the screen. The second signal (the “information signal”) was responsible for displaying a message which was intended to appear if the user responded to the prompt (by pressing the relevant button on the remote control of the TV or STB), or for running computer code contained in the information signal or triggering a program already resident in the STB.
Continue reading "UK - Rovi v. Virgin Media" » 30/05/2014 in Invalidity, Inventive step, Rovi, United Kingdom , Virgin | Permalink
UK - Generics (UK) (Mylan) v. Gedeon Richter
Generics (UK) Ltd (Trading As Mylan) v. Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT, Patents Court (Chancery Division), High Court of Justice, London, UK, 22 May 2014, Case No. [2014] EWHC 1666 (Pat)
Mr Justice Sales sitting in the Patents Court has held that Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT’s (“Gedeon Richter”) EP (UK) Patent No. 1 448 207 concerning a single-dose regimen for the use of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception to be invalid for obviousness on a revocation action brought by Generics (UK) Ltd (“Mylan”).Mylan’s case was that the patent was invalid for (i) obviousness over the common general knowledge together with a publication reporting on a presentation of the interim results of a WHO study on the effectiveness of a single dose of levonorgestrel compared to the common two-dose regimen (“Killick”); and (ii) insufficiency. As Mylan’s insufficiency attack was pleaded in the alternative if the obviousness attack failed, the judgment does not assess the insufficiency attack.The main patent claim was as follows:“Use of 1.5+ 0.2 mg levonorgestrel for the preparation of a pharmaceutical for emergency contraception.”
Continue reading "UK - Generics (UK) (Mylan) v. Gedeon Richter" » 30/05/2014 in Gedeon Richter, Generics, Invalidity, Inventive step, Mylan, Obviousness, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Phil & Ted's Most Excellent Buggy Company v TFK Phil & Ted's Most Excellent Buggy Company Ltd v (1) TFK Trends for Kids GmbH (2) Oliver Beger (3) Udo Beger, 16 April 2014, [2014] EWCA Civ 469, The Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Terence Etherton, Kitchen LJ and Sir Stanley BuntonThe Court of Appeal has dismissed TFK's appeal against a decision of HHJ Birss QC (as he then was) and held that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that TFK's European Patent (UK) 1 795 424 (the "Patent") was obvious, and therefore invalid, in light of a piece of prior art known as "Goodbaby" (a Chinese utility model patent) and the common general knowledge. The Patent concerned baby buggies.TFK sought to appeal the first instance decision on the basis that the judge erred in principle when considering the fourth Pozzoli question, that being whether, viewed without any knowledge of the invention as claimed, the identified differences between the inventive concept of the Patent and the Goodbaby prior art (those differences being adapters to detachably mount a seat on a chassis and means of suspending the base from the frame) constituted steps that would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or whether they required any degree of invention. Continue reading "UK - Phil & Ted's Most Excellent Buggy Company v TFK " » 02/05/2014 in Invalidity, Obviousness, Phil & Ted's, United Kingdom | Permalink
Hospira UK Limited v Genentech Inc, Patents Court, 10 April 2014, [2014] EWHC 1094 (Pat), Birss J The Patents Court found two of Genentech’s patents for Herceptin (trastuzumab) invalid, and granted Hospira a declaration of non-infringement in respect of certain trastuzumab formulations. One patent was for a dosage regimen and the other for a purified composition of trastuzumab. Birss J’s judgment contains some significant legal points, particularly in relation to the dosage regimen patent. The dosage regimen patent claimed a three weekly administration of trastuzumab, in contrast to the weekly dosage in use at the priority date. One interesting issue was on claim construction. Claim 1 was in Swiss-type form (“use of X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of Y”). The parties agreed that: (i) in the context of a Swiss-type claim, “treatment” means something which is indeed an effective treatment – in this case for breast cancer; and (ii) in the context of a second medical use patent, “for” does not mean “suitable for” but rather “suitable for and intended for”. Continue reading "UK - Hospira v. Genentech" » 23/04/2014 in Genentech, Hospira, Infringement, Invalidity, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Starsight v. Virgin Starsight Telecast Inc and United Video Properties Inc v Virgin Media Limited, Virgin Media Payments Limited and Tivo Inc, Patents Court, 26 March 2014, [2014] EWHC 828 (Pat), Arnold J
The Opposition Division had held that the patent as granted contained added subject matter and upheld the patent in amended form, but that decision was suspended as both sides had appealed. Therefore, Arnold J considered the patent in both the form as granted and as amended. Arnold J concluded, in summary: (i) the granted 234 patent was invalid for added matter and obviousness, but if it were valid one type of STB would have infringed; (ii) the amended 234 patent was invalid for obviousness, but even if it were valid the STBs would not have infringed; and (iii) the other patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness, but if it were valid the STBs would not have infringed. He noted that if this decision was appealed, consideration should be given to asking the Technical Board of Appeal to expedite the EPO appeal proceedings and also to ensuring that this appeal would not be heard until after the Board’s decision and reasons were available. Points of interest in Arnold J’s judgment include the issue of added matter, and his comments on product and process descriptions (PPDs), primers and the parties’ expert witnesses.
Continue reading "UK - Starsight v. Virgin " » 09/04/2014 in Added matter, Amendments, Infringement, Invalidity, Obviousness, Starsight Telecast, United Kingdom , Virgin | Permalink
UK - Samsung v Apple
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v (1) Apple Retail UK Ltd (2) Apple Sales International, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 11 March 2014, [2014] EWCA Civ 250, Moore-Bick LJ, Rimer LJ and Kitchin LJThe Court of Appeal granted Samsung’s application to adjourn the hearing of its appeal of the decision that two of its UK (EP) patents were invalid, pending the outcome of its applications to the EPO for central amendment of the patents’ claims. The UK infringement and validity proceedings form part of a global dispute between Samsung and Apple, and Samsung explained that the timing of its applications for amendment was due to the need to coordinate the various European actions. In response to Samsung’s application to adjourn, Apple had applied, in effect, for Samsung to be ordered to elect to either abandon the appeal, or proceed with the appeal and not pursue the amendments. The Court of Appeal held that it could not properly interfere with Samsung’s filing and pursuit of those applications, and if the UK appeal proceeded before their outcome it may be doing so on a false basis with consequential wasted costs and time, whereas there was no suggestion that an adjournment would cause Apple any significant prejudice. The Court distinguished this case from its decision in IPCom v HTC [2013] EWCA Civ 1496. IPCom v HTC concerned the grant of a stay of UK infringement and validity proceedings pending the outcome of concurrent EPO opposition proceedings, not the outcome of amendment proceedings. Unlike opposition proceedings, central amendment proceedings (introduced by the EPC 2000) were intended to be simple and relatively quick, and their outcome in this case was likely before the UK proceedings (if not adjourned) would have been finally decided.
Continue reading "UK - Samsung v Apple" » 18/03/2014 in Amendments, Apple, Samsung, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Brundle v Perry
F H Brundle v Richard Perry and (1) Betafence Limited (2) Britannia Fasteners Limited, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, 6 March 2014, [2014] EWHC 475 (IPEC), HHJ Hacon Brundle (a wholesaler of metal products) succeeded in its action under section 70 Patents Act 1977 for groundless threats of patent infringement proceedings. Brundle relied on three letters it had received from Mr Perry (the defendant). In the first letter, Mr Perry stated that a product sold by Brundle infringed his patent for a fence bracket and that he intended to take legal proceedings if no amicable solution could be reached regarding paying him his share of the profits. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) held that each of the letters each constituted a threat of proceedings (section 70(1) and (5)) and Brundle was a “person aggrieved” (section 70(2)). The Court went on to decide that the product did not infringe the patent, and, therefore, Mr Perry’s threats were unjustified and he had no defence under section 70(2A), and his counterclaim for infringement must also be dismissed. The Court further dismissed Mr Perry’s claim for infringement against two third parties, one of which was Brundle’s supplier of the product. Continue reading "UK - Brundle v Perry" » 12/03/2014 in Brundle, Groundless threat, Perry, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Jarden v. SEB
Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Groupe SEB UK Ltd, Patents Court, 28 February 2014, [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat), Arnold J This case concerned the validity of SEB’s European Patent (UK) No. 2 085 003 entitled “Fryer with automatic fat coating” and whether it was infringed by Jarden’s import and sale of a fryer called the Breville Halo Health fryer. The patent described the object of the invention as “a novel fryer and a novel frying method” with various advantages. Mr Justice Arnold concluded that some claims (1, 3 and 8) were invalid for obviousness over prior art, but other claims (10, 11 and 13) were valid and infringed. The judgment provides a nice example of the way in which the English courts approach the issues of claims construction (interpretation) and obviousness whilst offering a relatively simple technical context with which to understand them.The patent claimed a “dry fryer” and the finding of invalidity stemmed from the judge’s construction of that term. Jarden argued that, while it excluded a deep fryer, it included a shallow fryer (e.g for stir-frying). SEB argued that it excluded not only a deep fryer but also a shallow fryer. Arnold J, having set out the principles of construction of patent claims as summarised by Jacob LJ in Virgin v Premium [2009] EWCA Civ 1062, agreed with Jarden’s construction. He held that two pieces of cited prior art disclosed a shallow fryer and the differences between those and claims 1, 3 and 8 were obvious at the priority date.
Continue reading "UK - Jarden v. SEB" » 07/03/2014 in Invalidity, Obviousness, United Kingdom | Permalink
UK - Collingwood v. Aurora
Collingwood Lighting Limited v Aurora Limited, Patents Court (Chancery Division), High Court of Justice, London, 10 February 2014, Case No. [2014] EWHC 228 (Pat)
Mr Justice Roth of the Patents Court has found for the claimant, Collingwood, against Aurora in an action for infringement under UK Patent No. 2475649. Collingwood contended that Aurora infringed its Patent for fire resistant LED downlighting. The Patent covers a lighting unit with a solid state lighting element and a fire resistant housing for fitting into an aperture in building partitions. Collingwood’s product manufactured according to the Patent was launched in May 2009, under the name “FireLED”. Aurora’s products, which were found to infringe the Patent, are those under the Aurora I-9 range. Aurora also introduced a redesign, which, in the event that Aurora should lose on validity and the I-9 range found to infringe, was intended to avoid such infringement.
Continue reading "UK - Collingwood v. Aurora" » 27/02/2014 in Aurora, Collingwoog Lighting, United Kingdom | Permalink