Services

Our services are centred around intellectual property that can be registered. We protect innovation, design, and branding across all sectors of industry, and at all stages in the supply chain.

For each IP right we offer services covering strategic advice, pre-registration searches, registrations and renewals, oppositions and dispute resolution. We handle work throughout the world, working with local colleagues in over 100 countries.

Sectors

Our attorneys specialise in one or more sectors of industry, which enables them to provide quality advice with a commercial focus.

Our patent specialists have detailed understanding of the background technology, which ensures that your patent applications are prepared with the correct scope, reducing the likelihood of challenges from third parties and objections from the patent office.

They also advise whether other forms of protection would be more appropriate. Our brand specialists work with brand managers for leading brands and their advice is commercially focussed making sure that you get the best value from your budget.

UK Supreme Court gives landmark decision on key infringement issues


14th Jul 2017

The recent UK Supreme Court decision in Actavis -v-Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 addresses important issues relating to patent infringement including the way in which alleged “equivalents” should be dealt with. Other issues addressed include if and when it is permissible to have recourse to the prosecution of a patent when considering whether a variant infringes, and the scope of the concept of contributory, or indirect infringement.

The decision was given by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger with the other Supreme Court Justices concurring. On the issue of equivalents, Lord Neuberger said that:

“…a problem of infringement is best approached by addressing two issues, each of which is to be considered through the eyes of the notional addressee of the patent in suit, i.e. the person skilled in the relevant art. Those issues are: (i) does the variant infringe any of the claims as a matter of normal interpretation; and, if not, (ii) does the variant nonetheless infringe because it varies from the invention in a way or ways which is or are immaterial? If the answer to either issue is “yes”, there is an infringement; otherwise, there is not.”

Lord Neuberger explained that issue (i) self-evidently raises a question of interpretation, whereas issue (ii) raises a question which would normally have to be answered by reference to the facts and expert evidence.

He went on to explain that the first question, of whether the variant infringed any of the claims is a matter of normal interpretation.

The second question is more difficult. What is it that makes a variant “immaterial”? Lord Neuberger referenced both of the previous lead decisions, Improver and then Kirin-Amgen and set out three questions:

  1. Notwithstanding that it is not within the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent, does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention, i.e. the inventive concept revealed by the patent?
  2. Would it be obvious to the person skilled in the art, reading the patent at the priority date, but knowing that the variant achieves substantially the same result as the invention, that it does so in substantially the same way as the invention?
  3. Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patentee nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an essential requirement of the invention?

For infringement to be found, the answer to the first two questions must be “yes” and the answer to the third “no”.

Lord Neuberger stated that the questions are guidelines, not strict rules and they may need to be adapted depending on the fact pattern of a particular case.

The decision brings the UK law of infringement closer to that of Germany and may make it easier for patent owners to enforce their rights in the UK.

Look out for further analysis of this very significant judgment from us in the near future.

This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.

Author
Alice Findlay
Partner
About the author

Would you like to know more? You can talk to Alice Findlay who will be able to help. Call +44 (0)20 7242 0901

EmailVCard

Register for notifications
Enter your email address here to receive our monthly bulletin of IP news and developments.
Saved Staff
Staff member

Remove all

Saved profiles
Call +44 (0)20 7242 0901
Call +44 (0)1223 360 350