High Court: Patents Court judgments, 2018

Summary judgment is unsuitable where contractual documents contain materially inconsistent provisions, the drafting is poor, and the proper construction may be…

Experimental evidence obtained for other proceedings cannot be introduced without complying with the court’s directions and the established procedure for…

For patent claims requiring additive particles to be fused to, or smeared over, active particles, the relevant question is whether the process applies…

For patent exhaustion, an insurer’s payment for a constructive total loss does not itself put the patented product into circulation or realise its economic…

In assessing obviousness, the court should use the structured Pozzoli approach, while keeping disclosure of the prior art distinct from the question whether…

For a combination product to be protected by a basic patent under Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation, the combination must be expressly mentioned in the claims…

Under US law, patent claims are construed objectively through the eyes of the skilled person at the relevant filing date. The claims, specification and…

A court may revisit its own decision before the order is perfected, but the discretion is governed by the overriding objective. Exceptional circumstances are…

“Data transmit power” in a patent claim may refer to the power of an individual data signal, rather than necessarily the transmitter’s total power. A…

The admission of late evidence is a discretionary case-management decision governed by the Overriding Objective. The court must balance fairness between the…

In assessing obviousness, the court must consider the skilled person’s common general knowledge and the technical choices presented by the prior art. A…

Patent claims are construed first by normal interpretation, understood as purposive construction, and then by applying the doctrine of equivalents where…

When deciding whether to stay or qualify a patent injunction because of public interest, the court must exercise a flexible, fact-sensitive discretion. The…

A patent claim is not obvious merely because a skilled person could identify a technically possible alternative to the prior art. The court must assess whether…

For service out of the jurisdiction, the claimant must establish a serious issue to be tried, a good arguable case within a relevant jurisdictional gateway…

FIDELITY was descriptive of the recognised category of fidelity insurance, so the marks were invalid for that category. The specifications could be amended by…

Patent claims are construed purposively and in context, but deliberate limitations in the claim must be given effect. Where a claim requires an article to have…

For obviousness, the skilled person must be identified by reference to the technical problem addressed by the patent. A prior-art process directed to mixed…

A global FRAND claim based on infringement of UK standard-essential patents is justiciable in England even though foreign patent validity cannot be determined…

A court has no statutory or common-law bar to ordering a joint inquiry as to damages and account of profits. Whether to do so is a matter of case management.…

A later claim is not necessarily an abuse merely because it could have been brought earlier. The court must make a broad, merits-based assessment of whether…

Patent novelty is defeated by implied disclosure only where the skilled person would inevitably derive the relevant feature. A possibility or likely…

Patent claims must be interpreted purposively, but the language of the claim cannot be disregarded. A claim requiring relative movement between contacting…

At a pre-trial review, the court may defer relief on an admitted claim where the scope of the final order depends on an unresolved issue and postponement…