| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2010] All ER (D) 207 (Jun) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat) |
| Court: | Chancery Division, Patents Court |
| Judge: | Arnold J |
| Representation | Michael Tappin QC and Henry Ward (instructed by Olswang LLP) for the claimants. |
| Simon Thorley QC and Andrew Lykiardopoulos (instructed by Bristows) for the defendants. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 23 June 2010 |
Catchwords
Patent - Infringement - Proceedings for infringement - Priority - Patents concerning apparatus for use in negative pressure wound therapy - Inventor assigning rights of invention to claimants - Claimants claiming right to priority and infringement of patents - Defendants seeking revocation of patents on grounds of lack of inventive step over items of prior art and obviousness - Whether claimants entitled to priority - Whether patents anticipated by prior art - Whether patents obvious - Whether defendant infringing claim by sale of pumps and canisters - , .
The Case
Patent Infringement. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, where the inventer of had assigned title to an invention, concerning apparatus for use in negative pressure wound therapy, to the claimants, the claimants were entitled to the priority date as claimed. The defendants' counter-claim seeking revocation of patents on the ground of obviousness failed.
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
