||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 83 (Apr)
|| EWHC 984 (Pat)
||Chancery Division, Patents Court
||Richard Davis and Ben Longstaff (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP) for the claimants.
||Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by Redd Solicitors LLP) for the defendant.
||18 April 2012
Patent - Infringement - Validity of patent - Obviousness - Added matter - Claimant company being owner of patent for spray paint gun - Claimant alleging defendant company infringing patent by its design 'Earlex spray gun' - Defendant allgeging patent invalid for added matter and obviousness - Whether infringement of patent - Whether patent obvious or having added matter.
Patent Infringement. The Chancery Division of the High Court held that a patent concerning spray guns was not infringed by the defendant's device and, in allowing the defendant's counterclaim, held that the patent was invalid for added matter and for obviousness.
- 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