ROHM & Haas Company & Anor v Collag Ltd & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1411 (22 August 2001)

ROHM & Haas Company & Anor v Collag Ltd & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1411 (22 August 2001)

Fresh evidence in the form of a later patent application by the defendant is inadmissible for construing the meaning of 'surfactant' in the patent in suit; construction must be based on the specification and admissible expert evidence, not subsequent documents.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1411
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Rohm & Haas Company; Proposed Second Appellant: Dow AgroSciences LLC; Defendant/respondent: Collag Limited (In receivership); Proposed Intervener/second Respondent: Agform Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Appeal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Interpretation of Technical Terms
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Interpretation of Technical Terms

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohm & Haas Company

Claimant/applicant

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Proposed Second Appellant

Collag Limited (In receivership)

Defendant/respondent

Agform Limited

Proposed Intervener/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Appeal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence (a later patent application) is admissible to construe the meaning of 'surfactant' in the patent in suit
  2. 2 Whether the word 'surfactant' in the patent should be construed narrowly (amphiphiles only) or broadly (including non-amphiphiles)

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh evidence in the form of a later patent application by the defendant is inadmissible for construing the meaning of 'surfactant' in the patent in suit; construction must be based on the specification and admissible expert evidence, not subsequent documents.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Applicants to pay respondent's costs assessed in the sum of £9,200, to be paid by 4 pm on Friday 7 September
  • Order to be drawn up as agreed between counsel