| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2012] All ER (D) 105 (Jun) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2012] EWCA Civ 602 |
| Court: | Court of Appeal, Civil Division |
| Judge: | Ward, Etherton and Lewison LJJ |
| Representation | Iain Purvis QC and Anna Edwards Stuart (instructed by Charles Russell, Solicitors) for the claimant |
| The defendant did not appear and was not represented. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 24 April 2012 |
Catchwords
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Novelty - Obviousness - Claimant company owning patent concerning method and arrangement for manufacturing wound dressings and wound dressing manufactured in accordance with that inventive method - Claimant alleging defendant company's products infringing patent - Judge finding non-infringement and relevant claims lacking novelty and being obvious in light of prior art - Claimant appealing - Whether judge erring.
The Case
Patent Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowing the appeal, held that, in finding that the claimant's patent was invalid for obviousness, the judge had made an error of principle in postulating a non-inventive route to the invention that was contrary to the only expert evidence on the subject.
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
- 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
