Nikken Kosakusho Works & Anor v Pioneer Trading Company & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 906 (29 June 2005)

Nikken Kosakusho Works & Anor v Pioneer Trading Company & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 906 (29 June 2005)

Post-trial amendment to patent claims is not permitted where it would result in a second trial on validity, as it violates the Henderson v Henderson principle and the overriding objective of the CPR to resolve all issues in one proceeding.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 906
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Nikken Kosakusho Works; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Nikken Kosakusho UK Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Pioneer Trading Company; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Nikken Heartech (Europe) Maschinehandels GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Post Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Discretion in Amendment, Civil Procedure Rules, Henderson V Henderson Principle
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Amendment Discretion in Amendment Civil Procedure Rules Henderson V Henderson Principle

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikken Kosakusho Works

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Nikken Kosakusho UK Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Pioneer Trading Company

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Nikken Heartech (Europe) Maschinehandels GmbH

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post-trial amendment to patent claims should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendment would contravene section 76(3) of Patents Act 1977
  3. 3 Exercise of discretion under section 75 of Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

Post-trial amendment to patent claims is not permitted where it would result in a second trial on validity, as it violates the Henderson v Henderson principle and the overriding objective of the CPR to resolve all issues in one proceeding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of respondents' notice