||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 21 (Jan)
|| EWHC 3393 (Pat)
||Chancery Division, Patents Court
||Henry Carr QC and Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by Fasken Martineau LLP) for the claimant.
||Andrew Waugh QC and Thomas Hinchliffe (instructed by Taylor Wessing) for the defendant.
||21 December 2011
Patent - Validity - Novelty - Obviousness - Insufficiency - Claimant company seeking revocation of patents held by defendant company relating to treatments for protecting pets or small mammals from fleas - Claimant seeking declarations of non-infringement in respect of flea treatments which it claimed it intended to sell - Defendant making unconditional offers to amend patent - Whether patents invalid on grounds of obviousness and insufficiency - Whether proposed amendments invalid on basis of added matter.
Patent Validity. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, decided, inter alia, that of the two patents, owned by the defendant company relating to treatments for protecting pets or small mammals from pleas, which the claimant company sought to revoke, patent 881 was not invalid either on the basis of obviousness or insufficiency. However, patent 564 was invalid on the ground of insufficiency alone.
- 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