| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2012] All ER (D) 104 (Jun) |
| Neutral Citation: | [2012] EWHC 1569 (Ch) |
| Court: | Chancery Division, Patents Court |
| Judge: | John Baldwin QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court |
| Representation | Martin Howe QC and Henry Ward (instructed by Charles Russell LLP) for the claimant. |
| Antony Watson QC and Tom Mitcheson (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 13 June 2012 |
Catchwords
Patent - Petition for revocation - Obviousness - Claimant company developing processes for development of pigment - Defendant company holding product and process patent in relation to form of pigment - Defendant asserting pigment being created by protected process and claimant's export being infringement of patent - Claimant seeking revocation of patent and relief for unjustified threat of infringement proceedings - Defendant proposing amendment to patent - Identity of skilled person - Scope of common general knowledge - Whether claimant working prior art or obvious variations - Whether patent valid - Whether amendments to patent should be allowed - Whether unjustified threats of patent infringement proceedings being made - .
The Case
Patent Petition for revocation. The Patents Court revoked the defendant's patent in relation to yellow pigment on the basis of obviousness.
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
