| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2010] All ER (D) 91 (Oct) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2010] EWCA Civ 1049 |
| Court: | Court of Appeal, Civil Division |
| Judge: | Lloyd, Richards and Sullivan LJJ |
| Representation | Colin Birss QC and Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for the claimant. |
| Iain Purvis QC and Anna Edwards-Stuart (instructed by Withers LLP) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 11 October 2010 |
Catchwords
Patent - Validity - Patent in suit relating to sugar substitute - Judge finding patent invalid in light of prior art - Whether judge erring in construction of patent - Whether judge erring in revoking patent.
The Case
Patent Validity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal of the defendant in respect of the findings of a judge that its European patent relating to maltitol, a sugar substitute, and in particular to its crystallisation, as the judge had correctly construed the patent in suit and held that it was invalid.
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
- 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
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
