| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2002] All ER (D) 152 (May) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2002] EWCA Civ 612 |
| Court: | Court of Appeal, Civil Division |
| Judge: | Aldous, Tuckey and Rix LJJ |
| Representation | Roger Wyand QC and Daniel Alexander (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the claimants. |
| Geoffrey Hobbs QC and Tom Mitcheson (instructed by Shoosmiths) for the defendants. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 10 May 2002 |
Catchwords
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Pumping apparatus - Whether patent valid - Whether patent infringed.
The Case
On the facts of the instant case, it had not been established that the full extent of the patent claim in the instant case was the inevitable result of other features of the patent claim being present in the prior art, and accordingly the patent was valid. Furthermore, the judge had been wrong to imply a limitation into the claim by importing a word into the claim, and as a result the patent was also infringed by the defendants' apparatus.
Practice Areas
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
