Supreme Court reverses patent damages rule
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court reverses patent damages rule

The UK Supreme Court has overturned decades of practice, ruling that damages should not have to be paid for infringing a patent that was later revoked at the European Patent Office

The decision by five judges of the Court in Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac was published today. It concerned Virgin’s European patent for business-class airline seats, in a case in which it was seeking more than £49 million ($75 million) in damages.

A bumpy ride

Virgin seat patent

The patentwas granted by the EPO in 2007, upheld following an opposition in 2009 but substantially revoked by the Technical Board of Appeal in September 2010.

Zodiac, formerly called Contour, makes seats and supplies them to various airlines, including Air Canada and Delta. Virgin sued it for infringement in July 2007. It later sued the airlines, in a case decided last year.

At first instance, in January 2009, Mr Justice Lewison found that the patent was not infringed. But in October of that year, the Court of Appeal foundthe patent valid and infringed, and refused to stay the judgment pending the outcome of proceedings at the EPO.

The appeal judges cited a 2007 case, Unilin Beheer v Berry Floor, which said that later decisions on validity at the EPO are irrelevant for UK proceedings. They granted a conditional injunction (later discharged) and enquiry into damages.

Unilin was based on two earlier decisions of the Court, Poulton and Coflexip.

Up in the air

UK Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (pictured, left) was asked essentially to revisit the Unilin principle. Zodiac argued that it was not right that damages should be paid for infringing a patent that, following EPO proceedings, was deemed never to have existed. Virgin countered that the finding of the English courts was res judicata.

The issue has become more urgent in recent years as patent litigation in the UK has become quicker, and court rulings are often issued (as in this case) before there is a final decision at the EPO.

In today’s lead ruling, Lord Sumption said Unilin was “wrongly decided”. He added: “[W]here judgment is given in an English court that a patent (whether English or European) is valid and infringed, and the patent is subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended (whether in England or at the EPO), the defendant is entitled to rely on the revocation or amendment on the enquiry as to damages.”

In a concurring opinion, Lord Neuberger reminded patentees that they always face the risk of revocation: “A patentee therefore must appreciate that it can never be sure that a decision of a court that the patent is valid will settle the question for good.”

Fasten your seat belts

Gordon Harris, a partner of Wragge & Co, who represented Zodiac during the four-year litigation, told Managing IP the reversal of Unilin was welcome and sensible.

He added that he believed the judges’ views on stays of litigation would not necessarily mean that cases last longer, as validity and infringement could still be decided at the normal pace: “You can go as far as a certain point in the litigation at your own risk. But damages enquiries will be stayed. It would be a brave judge who would do anything different.”

In theory the decision means that companies that have paid damages for infringing patents that were later revoked may now be able to recover them.

However, in practice, most damages claims are settled between the parties following a finding of infringement. This limits the impact of the decision, said Harris: “Most damages are settled with a concluded contract of compromise, which cannot be undone, so I don’t think the floodgates will open.”

Zodiac was also represented by barristers Henry Carr QC, Iain Purvis QC and Brian Nicholson.

Barristers Jonathan Crow QC, Richard Meade QC and Henry Ward, with law firm DLA Piper, acted for Virgin Atlantic.

Virgin’s representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

View the Social Impact EMEA Awards 2024 shortlist and join us on September 12 at The Waldorf Hotel in London
James Tumbridge talks about advising the government on AI and why his day could start with the police and end with legal networking
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows that the IP ambitions of Asian full-service firms and a life sciences focus in the US have prompted lateral moves
Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
Gift this article