| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2012] All ER (D) 83 (Apr) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2012] EWHC 984 (Pat) |
| Court: | Chancery Division, Patents Court |
| Judge: | Floyd J |
| Representation | Richard Davis and Ben Longstaff (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP) for the claimants. |
| Thomas Mitcheson (instructed by Redd Solicitors LLP) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 18 April 2012 |
Catchwords
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.
The Case
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.
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
