InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

United Kingdom: A new approach to patent infringement




In a landmark decision on patent infringement (Actavis UK Limited v Eli Lilly & Company [2017] UKSC 48), the Supreme Court has confirmed that UK law does provide for a doctrine of equivalents when determining the scope of patent protection.

Prior to this decision, determining the issue of infringement in the UK required a "purposive" construction of the patent claims. In any purposive construction, the courts would establish the meaning of the claim language in the eyes of the skilled person, before deciding whether any alleged infringement fell within the scope of this meaning. If an alleged infringement was outside of this scope, there would be no infringement.

In other words, the language of the patent was considered to be of critical importance and, if the language of a claim could not be construed to extend to an equivalent, this equivalent did not represent an infringement. However, in the approach established by this recent decision, infringement may now arise even when the specific language of a claim would not be understood as extending to the alleged equivalent.

The Supreme Court judgment helpfully sets out guidance for determining whether there is infringement in such circumstances. In simple terms, for an equivalent to represent an infringement, the equivalent must obviously achieve the same result in the same way as the invention in the eyes of the skilled person when viewed at the priority date. Additionally, the skilled person must conclude there was no requirement for strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claims. If these conditions are satisfied, the equivalent will represent an infringement.

While this most recent decision in July 2017 represents a new approach for the UK courts, this refreshed approach to equivalents is closely aligned with that taken by the German and Dutch courts. Accordingly, this decision can certainly be viewed as an attempt to align the interpretation of infringement across Europe before the first cases at the new Unified Patent Court.

Chapman
Helga Chapman

Chapman + Co
Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys
Chapman IP, Kings Park House, 22 Kings Park Road
Southampton SO15 2AT, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 23 8000 2022 
info@chapmanip.com  
www.chapmanip.com


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

Patent 10 million is for "Coherent Ladar Using Intra-Pixel Quadrature Detection" https://t.co/Aj33HgQqNV

Jun 19 2018 05:35 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Samsung Told to Pay $400 Million in FinFet Patent Dispute https://t.co/bwfwaur9cs

Jun 18 2018 03:20 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

What BT v Cartier means for rights holders https://t.co/Jdoxk9xA8y The UK Supreme Court has ruled that brand owners… https://t.co/0WrGvBJ8Y2

Jun 18 2018 10:31 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null

null null null

null null null

May 2018

Technology alters the anti-counterfeiting landscape

Ellie Mertens reveals evolving technologies are changing the counterfeiting game on both sides, as a tool for both prevention and evasion



Most read articles

Supplements