Patent Infringement and Defenses D
Infringements TOC 74, Notes 160
• It has always been the case that patent infringement requires some sort of commercial activity (British United Shoe Machinery Co v Simon Collier (1910) TOC 74, Notes 160
• intention is irrelevant to the imposition of liability (Proctor v Bennis (1887) 4 RPC 333); yet innocence can effect the remedy awarded TOC 74 Notes 160
Direct infringement TOC 74, Notes 161
requires that the infringing conduct be done without the patentee’s consent and within the UK
the infringing conduct be done while the patent is in force:TOC 74, Notes 161
the infringing conduct in respect of product and process patents TOC 74, Notes 161
the defendant has to have information about the patent in order to know that use of the process will infringe TOC 74, Notes 161
Indirect
• The provision requires knowledge (objectively defined) on the part of the defendant. This is not knowledge of the patent, rather it is knowledge that what has been supplied will make the invention work. TOC 75, Notes 162
• That ‘something tangible’ is an essential element of the invention TOC 75, Notes 162
in the UK) involves supplying or offering to supply something tangible TOC 75, Notes 162
Other Infringements
click to edit
• Note: One practical point is that a claimant cannot sue for infringement until the patent has been formally granted. TOC 73, Notes 163
where the defendant is a joint tortfeasor, either because they induced the infringing act or because they were party to a common design; Each person must make the infringing acts his own’: Sabaf SpA v Meneghetti [2003] RPC 264 (CA) at para 58 TOC 73, Notes 163
Revocation (a) (not a patentable invention) and paragraph (means means failure to comply with any of the requirements of patentability will invalidate the patent) TOC 77 Notes 165