| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2012] All ER (D) 99 (Jun) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2012] EWHC 1602 (Pat) |
| Court: | Chancery Division, Patents Court |
| Judge: | Judge Birss QC sitting as a judge of the High Court |
| Representation | James Mellor QC and Charlotte May (instructed by Bristows) for the claimant. |
| Piers Acland QC and Geoffrey Pritchard (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 13 June 2012 |
Catchwords
Patent - Petition for revocation - Obviousness - Defendant company holding patent - Claimant company seeking revocation of patent on grounds of obviousness from prior art - Defendant seeking amendment of patent - Identity of skilled person - Scope of common general knowledge - Whether amendments rendering patent valid.
The Case
Patent Petition for revocation. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, allowed amendments to a patent concerning photostable methods of making a wound dressing using silver as an antimicrobial agent and found the amended patent was valid.
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
