UK – Microsoft v. Motorola

Posted: January 8th, 2013

Microsoft Corporation and others -v- Motorola Mobility LLC and another, Patents Court, High Court of Justice, London, The Hon Mr Justice Arnold, 21 December 2012, [2012] EWHC 3677 (Pat) This case concerned the validity of Motorola’s European Patent (UK) No. 0 847 654, relating to the synchronisation of message information across multiple mobile devices, and […]


UK – Medimmune v. Novartis

Posted: October 12th, 2012

Medimmune v Novartis & Anor and Novartis v Medimmune & Anor, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 10 October 2012, Case no. [2012] EWCA Civ 1234 This is a joint appeal relating to Medimmune's and MRC's jointly held patents for phage display technology: 1. In action HC09C04770 MedImmune Limited (“MedImmune”), alleged Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited (“Novartis”) […]


UK – Vernacare v. Environmental Pulp Products

Posted: October 2nd, 2012

Vernacare v. Environmental Pulp Products Limited, Patents County Court, London, UK, 19 July 2012, [2012] EWPCC 41 The Patents County Court held that Vernacare’s patent was valid and infringed by Environmental Pulp Products (EPP). Vernacare’s patent, GB 2 446 793, relates to disposable washing bowls made of paper pulp which are used in hospitals and […]


UK – Gedeon Richter v. Bayer Pharma

Posted: March 15th, 2012

Gedeon Richter plc v. Bayer Pharma AG, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 7 March 2012, [2012] EWCA Civ 235 Gedeon Richter (“Richter”) commenced revocation proceedings in respect of two of Bayer’s patents, EP (UK) 1 380 301 (“’301) and EP (UK) 1 598 069 (“’069”). Both patents related to immediate release formulations of the steroidal […]


DE – E-Mail via SMS

Posted: February 28th, 2012

E-Mail via SMS, German Federal Supreme Court, 22 November 2011, Case No. X ZR 58/10 In the above judgment, the German Federal Supreme Court ruled on obviousness of improvements of data structures provided in an international standard, finding that a skilled person concerned with selectively improving a data structure provided in an international standard normally […]


UK – Apimed Medical Honey v. Brightwake Limited

Posted: January 20th, 2012

Apimed Medical Honey Limited v. Brightwake Limited, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 20 January 2012, Case No. [2012] EWCA Civ 5 The patent claimed a composition (commercially available as Algivon) for a wound dressing combining honey with a "gelling agent". The gelling agent increases viscosity to the extent that it results in a flexible sheet […]


UK – Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services

Posted: July 29th, 2010

Schlumberger v. Electromagnetic Services, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 July 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 819 The Court of Appeal has allowed Electromagnetic Services’ (EMGS) appeal of the decision of the Patents Court to revoke two of EMGS’ patents relating to the use of CSEM (Controlled Source Electromagnetic) surveying to detect oil and gas deposits […]


UK – Cook Biotech v. Edwards Lifesciences / Appeal

Posted: June 28th, 2010

Cook Biotech Incorporated v. Edwards Lifesciences AG, High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 28 June 2010, [2010] EWCA Civ 718
“This appeal concerns the validity of European Patent (UK) 1 255 510 (“the Patent”), which was filed on 31 January 2001. The Patent is called “stent” valves …


UK – KCI v. S&N

Posted: June 23rd, 2010

KCI Licensing Inc, KCI Medical Resources and KCI Medical Limited v. Smith & Nephew Plc, Smith & Nephew Inc, Smith & Nephew Medical Limited and Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, London, UK, 23 June 2010, [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat)
The Patents Court has upheld European Patents (UK) Nos. 0 777 504 B1 (“‘504”) and 0 853 950 B1 (“‘950”) and found both to have been infringed by S&N.
KCI’s Patents concern apparatus for use in negative pressure wound therapy (‘950 is a divisional of ‘540). This therapy, involving the use of vacuums, has been found to reduce bacterial infection and to promote tissue growth, and thus to help heal wounds which were difficult to treat by previous methods.
S&N sought to invalidate the Patents on the basis that they were not entitled to priority …