Patent Infringement in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Octubre 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.

  • Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Octubre 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. 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
    • House of Lords
    • 1980

    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)
    • Supreme Court
    • 03 Julio 2013

    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
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 2017

    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.
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 Enero 2008

    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
    • House of Lords
    • 12 Mayo 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.

See all results
  • Patents Act 2004
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 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
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 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
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 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
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 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 ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
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