David Parsons v Convatec Limited

A court should rarely revisit an unappealed case-management decision made by a judge of equal standing. It should do so only in extraordinary circumstances. A pleading may identify an invention at a relatively general level, provided it is objectively linked to the relevant patent materials. A possible mismatch between that description and detailed specifications does not itself establish non-compliance. Parties must nevertheless plead concrete factual allegations directly. An interpretational dispute about the inventive concept does not justify refusing to admit, deny or otherwise answer factual assertions. General statements of case cannot substitute for engagement with material facts.

This was a procedural hearing in patent entitlement proceedings concerning seven patent families. A Deputy Judge had directed the claimant to amend his particulars by identifying the inventions through clear references to relevant patent specifications, including the description and at least one representative claim. The claimant made amendments and provided a schedule identifying patent material. The defendant sought further amendments requiring greater precision, including identification of known facts, concepts and contributors, and challenged the adequacy of the claimant’s pleadings. The claimant also challenged the need to revisit the earlier case-management decision. The issues were whether the claimant had complied with the earlier order and what further pleading directions should be made.

1. Revisiting case management. The court had power to manage the proceedings further, but should rarely, if ever, redo an earlier case-management decision made by a judge of the same seniority where there had been no appeal. That course required the most extraordinary circumstances. The defendant’s application substantially sought such a re-do.
2. Claimant’s compliance. A general statement such as the pleaded description of the Bray 2003 invention was capable of appropriately characterising a high-level invention. The earlier order did not require amendment of that statement. The claimant’s schedule, which identified parts of the specifications and representative claims, complied on its face with the order. A potential mismatch between a general inventive concept and more detailed patent material might require consideration, but did not amount to a breach.
3. Defendant’s pleading. The defendant could not rely on an interpretational dispute about the inventive concept to avoid pleading to factual allegations concerning meetings, events and the claimant’s acts. It was required to admit, deny or otherwise answer those allegations in a CPR-compliant manner. General assertions about the importance of patents, or about the claimant’s contributions, were insufficient where the defendant had a positive case or relevant factual knowledge. Those matters had to be pleaded concretely.
4. The court gave the claimant four weeks to consider amendments addressing the potential mismatch, without requiring any amendment. The defendant was then required to serve an amended defence consistent with the guidance given. The parties were encouraged to discuss the management of the seven patent families and possible trial division before the case-management conference.

The judgment describes an earlier procedural decision in the same proceedings:

• High Court (Patents Court) — A Deputy Judge gave directions on pleading the alleged inventions in [2024] EWHC 211 (Pat). The present court held that the claimant had complied with those directions and gave further case-management directions.