Nikken Kosakusho Works & Anor v Pioneer Trading Company & Anor

Nikken Kosakusho Works & Anor v Pioneer Trading Company & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that it would be improper to allow a post-trial amendment to the patent that would necessitate a second trial on validity. The principles of Henderson v Henderson, reinforced by the overriding objective of the CPR, require parties to bring their whole case forward at trial. There is no special rule for patent litigation that justifies deviation from this approach. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant: Nikken Kosakusho Works; Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant: Nikken Kosakusho UK Limited; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Pioneer Trading Company; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Nikken Heartech (Europe) Maschinehandels GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patent Office)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Discretion to Amend, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Henderson V Henderson Principle
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Amendment Discretion to Amend Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikken Kosakusho Works

Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant

Nikken Kosakusho UK Limited

Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant

Pioneer Trading Company

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Nikken Heartech (Europe) Maschinehandels GmbH

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patent Office)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patentee should be allowed to amend the patent post-trial to save its validity
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would contravene section 76(3) of the Patents Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion to allow amendment post-trial is proper

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it would be improper to allow a post-trial amendment to the patent that would necessitate a second trial on validity. The principles of Henderson v Henderson, reinforced by the overriding objective of the CPR, require parties to bring their whole case forward at trial. There is no special rule for patent litigation that justifies deviation from this approach. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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