| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2010] All ER (D) 123 (Feb) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat) |
| Court: | Chancery Division, Patents Court |
| Judge: | Floyd J |
| Representation | Richard Meade QC and James Abrahams (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the claimant. |
| Daniel Alexander QC and Brian Nicholson (instructed by Bristows) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 18 January 2010 |
Catchwords
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Obviousness - Claimant bringing revocation proceedings against defendant - Defendant bringing infringement proceedings against claimant - Claimant contending that defendant's patents obvious and/or anticipated in light of common general knowledge and prior art - Whether claimant infringing defendant's patents - Whether defendant's patents invalid.
The Case
Patent Infringement. A judge of the Chancery Division held that two of the defendant's patents, relating to cellular mobile phone technology, were invalid due to their obviousness with regard to the common general knowledge and prior art relied on by the claimant.
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
