header-logo header-logo

30 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Patent

Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA [2014] EWCA Civ 1629, [2015] All ER (D) 22 (Jan)

The defendant (and first CPR Pt 20 claimant) and the second CPR Pt 20 claimant brought proceedings against the claimant in respect of infringement of the patent for a dry fryer. The judge held, inter alia, that claims 10, 11 and 13 of the patent were valid and had been infringed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant’s appeal on the main construction point. It held, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to conclude that the main heater means mounted on the main body referred to in claim 9 of the patent could include a “main heater means” mounted in the lid.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau appoints new London office head as firm continues investment in capital

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson strengthens All-Island life sciences platform with appointment of leading Galway MedTech lawyer

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

National law firm strengthens commercial offering with acquisition of leading immigration practice

NEWS
Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision to order costs on an indemnity basis may be a ‘significant win’ but it’s still ‘far from game, set and match’ for Associated Newspapers, a former costs judge has said
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners
back-to-top-scroll