Patent Infringement in UK Law
-
Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
“
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.
-
Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
“
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. And for this purpose, the language he has chosen is usually of critical importance. 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.
-
Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd
“
A patent specification should be given a purposive construction rather than a purely literal one derived from applying to it the kind of meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers are too often tempted by their training to indulge.
-
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Ltd)
“
A decision of an English court declaring a patent invalid, or (which will normally follow) revoking it, will have effect in the United Kingdom only, whereas a corresponding decision of the EPO, which was the authority by which the patent was granted, will have effect in all the states for which the patent was granted.
-
Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company
“
Secondly, the fact that the language of the claim does not on any sensible reading cover the variant is certainly not enough to justify holding that the patentee does not satisfy the third question. Thirdly, when considering the third question, it is appropriate to ask whether the component at issue is an "essential" part of the invention, but that is not the same thing as asking if it is an "essential" part of the overall product or process of which the inventive concept is part.
-
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc.
“
Fourthly, the possibility of the duplication of proceedings contesting the validity of a patent granted by the EPO is inherent in the system established by the EPC. In practice national courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction on infringement issues and they have concurrent jurisdiction with the EPO on validity issues.
-
C.B.S. Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc
“
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.
-
Patents Act 2004
... ... ) there is inserted—(4A) Methods of treatment or diagnosis“(1) A patent shall not be granted for the invention of—(a) a method of treatment of ... (5) In section 75 of that Act (amendment in infringement or revocation proceedings) , after subsection (4) there is ... ...
-
Patents Act 1977
... ... Patentability ... 1: Patentable inventions ... (1) A patent may be granted only for an invention in respect of which the following ... done during that period which would have constituted an infringement of the rights conferred by publication of the application if the ... ...
-
Patents and Designs Act 1907
... ... Part I ... Patents ... Application for and Grant of Patent ... Application for and Grant of Patent ... Application. 1 ... shall not be entitled to institute any proceeding for infringement until a patent for the invention has been granted to him. S-11 ... ...
-
Patents Act 1949
... ... (1) An application for a patent for an invention may be ... made by any of the following persons, that is ... under this section ... Reference in case of potential infringement. 9 Reference in case of potential infringement ... (1) If, in ... ...
-
Commentary: Estimating Patent Infringement Damages. A CRITIQUE OF THE YARDSTICK APPROACH
A brief critique of the so‐called yardstick approach to assessing damages resulting from patent infringement which not only informs product managers whose responsibilities may include assisting leg...
- Patent Infringement in Australia: Results from a Survey
- A Comment on Infringement and Obviousness in Australian Patent Law
-
An R&D knowledge management method for patent document summarization
Purpose: In an era of rapidly expanding digital content, the number of e‐documents and the amount of knowledge frequently overwhelm the R&D teams and often impede intellectual property management. ...... ... EfficientR&D knowledge management helps the firm to take advantage of IP positioning while avoiding patentconflict and infringement.Keywords Document handling,Knowledge management, Informationmanagement,IntellectualpropertyPaper type Research paperThe current issue and full text ... ...
-
A Seismic Shift in UK Patent Infringement Law - Actavis v. Eli Lilly
In a decision that appears to have introduced a doctrine of equivalents for the first time, the UK Supreme Court has shifted the laws on patent infringement in Actavis v. Eli Lilly UK [2017] UKSC 4...
- What Constitutes Patent Infringement?
- GE vs Siemens - UK Patent Infringement
- Is AI Patent Infringement Detectable?