David Parsons v Convatec Limited

David Parsons v Convatec Limited

Dr. Parsons has complied with the Deputy Judge's order by referencing specific parts of patent specifications and representative claims in his amended pleadings. The statements of invention are sufficiently clear and general to be appropriate for patent entitlement proceedings. Convatec's defence fails to adequately plead to factual assertions and must be amended to comply with CPR requirements. No breach of the previous order by Dr. Parsons is found.

Parties
Claimant: David Parsons; Defendant: Convatec Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Entitlement Proceedings / Procedural Hearing on Compliance With Previous Case Management Order
Outcome
Dr. Parsons found in compliance with previous order; no further order against him except granting four weeks to consider further amendments.
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Pleadings Adequacy, Case Management, Mediation
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Entitlement Pleadings Adequacy Case Management Mediation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Parsons

Claimant

Convatec Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Entitlement Proceedings / Procedural Hearing on Compliance With Previous Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Parsons complied with the Deputy Judge's order regarding amended particulars of claim
  2. 2 Adequacy of pleadings identifying inventions and linking them to patent specifications
  3. 3 Whether Convatec's defence adequately responds to factual assertions

Ratio Decidendi

Dr. Parsons has complied with the Deputy Judge's order by referencing specific parts of patent specifications and representative claims in his amended pleadings. The statements of invention are sufficiently clear and general to be appropriate for patent entitlement proceedings. Convatec's defence fails to adequately plead to factual assertions and must be amended to comply with CPR requirements. No breach of the previous order by Dr. Parsons is found.

Court Disposition

Dr. Parsons found in compliance with previous order; no further order against him except granting four weeks to consider further amendments.

Orders

  • Dr. Parsons granted four weeks to consider and make further amendments to pleadings if advised.
  • Convatec required to file amended defence consistent with guidance on factual engagement.