Patent Infringement in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Mölnlycke A.B. v Procter & Gamble Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 Jun 1991

    Conversely the English court could not entertain a claim for the infringement of a German patent. English patent law as embodied in the Patents Act 1977 is founded on international convention, not just European Community convention, but, subject to certain special provisions of the Act, its application by the English court is a matter of English law.

  • Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Oct 2005

    If I may summarise the effect of these two well-known statements, the matter relied upon as prior art must disclose subject-matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in an infringement of the patent. That may be because the prior art discloses the same invention. In that case there will be no question that performance of the earlier invention would infringe and usually it will be apparent to someone who is aware of both the prior art and the patent that it will do so.

  • Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Ltd)
    • Supreme Court
    • 03 Jul 2013

    The effect of these provisions is that the English courts have the same jurisdiction to determine questions of validity and infringement in the case of a European patent as they have for domestic patents, but that concurrent jurisdiction over questions of validity is exercisable by the EPO. There is, however, an important difference between the legal effect of a decision in the two jurisdictions.

  • Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Company Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 Oct 2018

    To the contrary, it would amount to a recognition by the court (i) that the SEP owner has complied with its undertaking to ETSI to offer a licence on FRAND terms; (ii) that the implementer has refused or declined to accept that offer without any reasonable ground for so doing; and (iii) that in these circumstances the SEP owner is entitled to the usual relief available for patent infringement including an injunction to restrain further infringement of the particular SEPs in issue in the proceedings.

  • C.B.S. Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 12 May 1988

    My Lords, I accept that a defendant who procures a breach of copyright is liable jointly and severally with the infringer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement. The defendant is a joint infringer; he intends and procures and shares a common design that infringement shall take place. A defendant may procure an infringement by inducement, incitement or persuasion.

  • Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others The Secretary of State for Health (Proposed Intervener)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 May 2015

    Mr Speck's point is a slightly different one, namely that no-one should be prevented by the grant of a patent from doing that which they did, or could have done, before. In any case it is not correct that the patent can prevent that which was done before. It was not possible before the patent was granted to foresee that the product would intentionally be used for treating pain.

  • Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Oct 2004

    The question is always what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean. On the other hand, it must be recognised that the patentee is trying to describe something which, at any rate in his opinion, is new; which has not existed before and of which there may be no generally accepted definition.

See all results
  • Intellectual Property Act 2014
    • England & Wales
    • 1 de Enero de 2014
    ...... (1) In section 213(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (unregistered design right: meaning of "design"), in subsection ... . (2) In section 51 of that Act (copyright infringement: exception for certain designs), in subsection (3), in the definition of ......
  • Patents Act 1977
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1977
    ......further period shall be valid;. .   . ( b . ) an act which would constitute an infringement of it if it. had not expired shall constitute such an infringement;. and. .   . ( c . ) an act which would constitute the use of the patented. ......
  • Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1883
    ......Every patent shall be dated and sealed as of the day of the application: Provided that no proceedings shall be taken in respect of an infringement committed before the publication of the complete specification: Provided also, that in case of more than one application for a patent for the same ......
  • Patents Act 2004
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2004
    ...... ‘(b) the relief is sought in good faith,. . and’. . . (3) In section 62 of that Act (restrictions on recovery of damages. for infringement), in subsection (3), after ‘satisfied that’ there is. inserted ‘(a)’ and at the end there is inserted ‘and. . . (b) the proceedings are ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT