Improver v Remington

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1989
Date1989
Year1989
CourtChancery Division (Patents Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
146 cases
  • Carku v NOCO
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 4 August 2022
    ...not enough to justify holding that the patentee does not satisfy the third question. Hence, the fact that the rubber rod in Improver [1990] FSR 181 could not possibly be said to be “an approximation to a helical spring” (to quote from p197) was not the end of the infringement issue even in ......
  • Meter-Tech LLC and Another v British Gas Trading Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • 16 September 2016
    ...a contextual meaning of a word or phrase in the claim was nevertheless within its language as properly interpreted (see Improver Corpn v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181 and Kirin-Amgen. They are as follows: (1) Does the variant have a material effect on the way the invention ......
  • Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Jupiters Ltd v Neurizon Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 firm's commentaries
8 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §16.03 Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 16 Comparing the Properly Interpreted Claims to the Accused Device
    • Invalid date
    ...renowned patent jurist Lord Hoffman observed that in his earlier landmark decision, Improver Corp. v Remington Consumer Prods., Ltd., [1990] FSR 181 (the oft-cited "EpiLady" case), he had summarized U.K. precedent on claim scope and the extent to which claims include equivalents ("variants"......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...310 at [170]. 175 Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc v NexPlanar Corp [2017] SGHC 310 at [196]. 176 [1982] RPC 183. 177 [1990] FSR 181. 178 Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc v NexPlanar Corp [2017] SGHC 310 at [184]. 179 Rohm and Haas Electronic Material......
  • Lecture
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...construed. 31 See also Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183 and Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181. 32 [2018] 1 SLR 856. 33 Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies [2018] 1 SLR 856 at [53]. 34 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] U......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...leading English authorities, Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd[1982] RPC 183, and Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Pte Ltd[1990] FSR 181. The “purposive approach” has now received the endorsement of the Court of Appeal in Genelabs. This approach as restated by Hoffman J (as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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