Brundle v Perry & Ors

Brundle v Perry & Ors

The accused products did not infringe the patent because they did not possess all the features of the claim. There was no real prospect of success in the appeal as the judge's interpretation was correct and no error was demonstrated in relation to all missing features.

Parties
Applicant: Brundle; Respondents: Perry & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Groundless Threats, Interpretation of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Groundless Threats Interpretation of Patent Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brundle

Applicant

Perry & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused products infringed Mr Perry’s patent
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in interpreting the features of the patent claim
  3. 3 Whether there was a real prospect of success in the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The accused products did not infringe the patent because they did not possess all the features of the claim. There was no real prospect of success in the appeal as the judge's interpretation was correct and no error was demonstrated in relation to all missing features.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Application dismissed