Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors (No. 2)

Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors (No. 2)

The presence of irrelevant or harmless material in the patent specification, left after amendment, does not amount to a lack of reasonable skill and knowledge under s.63(2) Patents Act 1977. Only failures that could mislead or affect the claims are material. The patentee is entitled to damages for the valid and infringed part of the patent.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Unilin Beheer BV; Appellant/defendant: Berry Floor NV; Appellant/defendant: Information Management Consultancy Ltd (t/a Responsive Designs plc); Appellant/defendant: B&Q plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From Patents County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Specification Drafting, Damages for Partial Validity, Reasonable Skill and Knowledge
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Specification Drafting Damages for Partial Validity Reasonable Skill and Knowledge

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unilin Beheer BV

Respondent/claimant

Berry Floor NV

Appellant/defendant

Information Management Consultancy Ltd (t/a Responsive Designs plc)

Appellant/defendant

B&Q plc

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From Patents County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent specification was framed with reasonable skill and knowledge under s.63(2) Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the presence of irrelevant or harmless material in the specification deprives the patentee of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The presence of irrelevant or harmless material in the patent specification, left after amendment, does not amount to a lack of reasonable skill and knowledge under s.63(2) Patents Act 1977. Only failures that could mislead or affect the claims are material. The patentee is entitled to damages for the valid and infringed part of the patent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patentee entitled to damages for the valid and infringed part of the patent
  • No deprivation of damages due to irrelevant harmless material in the specification