Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 266 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWCA Civ 704
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Jacob, Moore-Bick and Etherton LJJ
Representation Antony Watson QC and Tom Mitcheson (instructed by Simmons and Simmons) for the claimant.
  Henry Carr QC and Piers Acland QC (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 30 June 2010

Catchwords

Patent - Petition for revocation - Obviousness - Insufficiency - Defendant companies owning patent concerned with artificial valves for implantation in human body - Claimant company applying for revocation of defendants' patent on basis of invalidity - Defendants counterclaiming for infringement of patent by claimant - Judge holding claimant not infringing defendant's patent but that patent valid - Whether claimant infringing patent.

The Case

Patent Petition for revocation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the defendant had not made out its case that the claimant company's patent had infringed it patent concerned with artificial valves for implantation in the human body and the defendant companies.

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
  • 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
  • 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