| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2007] All ER (D) 151 (Jan) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2007] EWCA Civ 15 |
| Court: | Court of Appeal, Civil Division |
| Judge: | Mummery, Tuckey and Jacob LJJ |
| Representation | John Mellor QC and James Abrahams (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for the claimant. |
| Christopher Floyd QC and Ian Purvis QC (instructed by Bristows) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 23 January 2007 |
Catchwords
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Novelty - Obviousness - Construction of claim - Defendant to infringement proceedings claiming patent invalid on grounds of obviousness and novelty - Whether judge misconstruing claim in patent - Whether judge erring in finding patent invalid due to obviousness.
The Case
Where the claimant had brought infringement proceedings against the defendant in respect of its patent relating to methods for cutting or trimming printed products, the judge had misconstrued the first claim of its patent, which on its true construction had been infringed by the defendant's process. The court should always guard against any post facto analysis in considering whether the claim was obvious, and in the instant case the judge had been wrong to find the patent was invalid due to obviousness, since he had failed to guard against hindsight.
Practice Areas
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
