Home » Patents » Top 10 Points from UK Court Decisions from 2013 (CIPA Event 27 November 2013)

Top 10 Points from UK Court Decisions from 2013 (CIPA Event 27 November 2013)

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page. Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified. This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked. This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

cipalogoToday we have a guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog IP Trends and is reproduced with the permission of the author.

These decisions were discussed at a CIPA event on 27 November 2013, and the following points are based on the cases selected by the speakers.

1. UK Patent cases in 2013: there were 32 High Court cases, 13 Court of Appeal, 2 Supreme Court and 12 PCC (now Intellectual Property Enterprise Court). Of these Birss handled 15 (9 at the PCC, 6 at the High Court), Arnold handled 8, Floyd handled 7 and Mann handled 4.

2. Virgin v Zodiac concerned res judicata and the end of the Unilin principles. Previous case law based on Unilin was that estoppel protects damages findings even if the patent is subsequently revoked. The Supreme Court decided in Virgin v Zodiac that action estoppel was not ‘absolute generally’, and though Zodiac could not challenge the Court of Appeal’s findings on validity it was able to rely on the fact that subsequent amendments at the EPO meant that infringement did not occur. Therefore the damages were not now payable. This case changed res judicata principles.

3. In IPCom v HTC the Court of Appeal revised the Glaxo guidelines for whether UK proceedings should be stayed if EPO proceedings are continuing, bringing commercial impact and certainty into the decision.

4. In Schutz v Werit the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal on the test for ‘making’ in a repair context, and provided a new test which focused on replacing a subsidiary part.

5. In Nestec v Dualit the High Court had to decide on ‘making’ in the case of capsules for a coffee machine. However more seriously Arnold decided that one’s own published priority case could be section 2(3) prior art and held that claim 1 was not novel over the priority application. Claim 1 was held to not have clearly defined alternatives as discussed in G2/98. Loss of priority has been a key issue in at least 5 cases in the last year and so it becoming important in UK proceedings.

6. In HTC v Apple the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court and found that multi-touch control on a screen did have technical effect and was patentable. The fact the device was improved as result was key point.

7. In Novartis v Generics the Court of Appeal agreed that an enantiomer was obvious, dismissing analysing inventive step ‘by chopping it up into a series of sub-questions’ and not allowing unpredictability to contribute.

8. In Generics v Yeda and Teva the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court which had found that when looking at whether the specification makes it plausible that the invention solves the technical problem it is not possible to rely on post-dated evidence. The Court of Appeal felt there could be no objection to admission of evidence on the true nature of the advance by the invention.

9. In Sudarshan v Clariant the Court of Appeal held that a threat to sue customers was an actionable action.

10. The change of name of the Patents County Court to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court was noted. Richard David Hacon is the new judge. Case breakdown is: 40% trade marks and passing off, 25% copyright, 20% patents and 13% designs.

Suleman Ali  6 December 2013

logo_k2_primary

Holly IP Vectored (2)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: