UK
UK
As A REsULt, tHE CoURt DEtERMInED tHAt tHE sKILLED PERson WAs
AWARE of tHE ConVEntIons of InCLUDInG REfEREnCE nUMERALs
In CLAIMs AnD tHE EURoPEAn ‘tWo-PARt foRM’ of CLAIMs
the earlier application from which priority is claimed or if he is the successor Th e Patents County Court (PCC) was established in 1990 as an alternative
in title to the person who fi led that earlier application”. It also held that the to the High Court, allowing simpler intellectual property cases to be
applicant’s position “is not improved if he subsequently acquires title to the dealt with at lower cost. In reality, however, PCC users have experienced
invention. It remains the case that he was not entitled to the privilege when
substantially the same costs and the PCC has the same jurisdiction as
he fi led the later application and made his claim.” Th e eff ect of this judgment
the High Court, thereby making little diff erence to parties involved in
is to require an assignment of the priority right before that right is exercised
intellectual property litigation.
by the fi ling of a later application.
In 2009, the Intellectual Property Court Users Committee submitted
Th e issue of the extent to which the skilled man is familiar with patent law
proposals for the reform of the PCC. Th ese proposals involve a limitation
was an issue in Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Premium Aircraft Interiors. Th is
of recovery costs for a successful party to £50,000 in patent cases to ensure
case was an appeal from the UK High Court’s decision that Virgin’s patent
that businesses will not be faced with enormous court costs if they lose;
was valid but not infringed by Premium. Based upon reasoning from the
greatly improved case management procedures; trial dates to be fi xed early
Kirin-Amgen decision, the court of appeal decided that the skilled reader is
on to increase convenience; and trials to be limited to between one and two
days, with time divided between the parties to ensure both parties are given
taken to know some patent law and that knowledge may aff ect how a patent
fair representation.
claim is read. As a result, the court determined that the skilled person was
aware of the conventions of including reference numerals in claims and the
Th e committee has also proposed that the PCC changes its name to the
European ‘two-part form’ of claims. With this in mind, the court held on
Intellectual Property County Court. Th ese changes will hopefully distinguish
appeal that the patent was valid and infringed.
the PCC from the High Court, allowing businesses in the UK to enforce
their intellectual property rights through a simpler system at a fraction of
Finally, in a particularly rare decision, the UK court awarded compensation
the current cost.
to an employee for having created an invention of signifi cant merit, which
was patented by his employer. Th erefore, 2009 can be characterised as a year of consolidation in the fi eld
of patent law and as a year of small but signifi cant decisions in the fi eld
Th e UK Patents Act allows for an employee to claim compensation when
of trademarks.
they have made an invention for which a patent has been granted to their
employer and the patent is of “outstanding benefi t”. In Kelly v. GE Healthcare,
the court shied away from trying to defi ne “outstanding benefi t” and instead
Lee Curtis is a trademark attorney at the Manchester offi ce of Harrison
held that the court would “recognise outstanding when it occurs”. Th e court
Goddard Foote. He can be contacted at: lcurtis@hgf.com
held that “compensation” in terms of the UK Patents Act means a disparity
between the benefi t received by the employee and the employer with the Chris Benson is a senior associate at Harrison Goddard Foote. He can be
benefi t of hindsight. contacted at: cbenson@hgf.com
160 World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 www.worldipreview.com
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173