Liversidge v Owen Mumford Ltd & Anor [2011] EWPCC 34 (29 November 2011)

Liversidge v Owen Mumford Ltd & Anor [2011] EWPCC 34 (29 November 2011)

The experiments are not highly complex or disproportionate in the context of the case and go directly to the central issue of how the allegedly infringing product works. Admitting them satisfies the cost-benefit test and does not undermine the streamlined procedure of the Patents County Court. The defendants' pleadings on obviousness were not in breach of the rules and further particulars may be provided with judicial oversight.

Citation
[2011] EWPCC 34
Parties
Claimant: Barry Liversidge; First Defendant: Owen Mumford Limited; Second Defendant: Abbott Laboratories Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Case Management Conference / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling
Outcome
Application to admit experimental evidence granted; case management directions given.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Case Management, Experimental Evidence, Costs Capping, Forum Selection
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Case Management Experimental Evidence Costs Capping Forum Selection

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Liversidge

Claimant

Owen Mumford Limited

First Defendant

Abbott Laboratories Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Case Management Conference / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether experimental evidence (videos and tests) regarding the operation of the Humira Pen should be admitted in evidence under Patents County Court procedures
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' pleadings on obviousness complied with CPR Part 63 r63.20
  3. 3 Whether the case management directions should limit the scope of expert evidence and experiments

Ratio Decidendi

The experiments are not highly complex or disproportionate in the context of the case and go directly to the central issue of how the allegedly infringing product works. Admitting them satisfies the cost-benefit test and does not undermine the streamlined procedure of the Patents County Court. The defendants' pleadings on obviousness were not in breach of the rules and further particulars may be provided with judicial oversight.

Court Disposition

Application to admit experimental evidence granted; case management directions given.

Orders

  • Defendants permitted to rely on the Notice of Experiments and associated videos.
  • No repeats of experiments without further court permission.