Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat) (10 May 2016)

Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat) (10 May 2016)

Given the current form of CPR r31.5(7), there is no longer a default rule in favour of standard disclosure. In this ordinary obviousness case, the likely probative value of patentee's disclosure does not justify the cost. No special features warrant ordering disclosure on obviousness. The overriding objective and proportionality do not support such an order.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Positec Power Tools (Europe) Limited; Claimant: Positec (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited; Claimant: Positec Germany GmbH; Defendant: Husqvarna AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / Case Management Conference (cmc) – Interlocutory Judgment on Disclosure
Outcome
Application for disclosure on obviousness refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Disclosure, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Obviousness Disclosure Case Management

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

Parties

Positec Power Tools (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Positec (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited

Claimant

Positec Germany GmbH

Claimant

Husqvarna AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / Case Management Conference (cmc) – Interlocutory Judgment on Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether patentee (Husqvarna) should be ordered to give disclosure on the issue of obviousness in a patent validity dispute under CPR r31.5(7)

Ratio Decidendi

Given the current form of CPR r31.5(7), there is no longer a default rule in favour of standard disclosure. In this ordinary obviousness case, the likely probative value of patentee's disclosure does not justify the cost. No special features warrant ordering disclosure on obviousness. The overriding objective and proportionality do not support such an order.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure on obviousness refused.

Orders

  • No order for standard or issue-based disclosure on obviousness; disclosure may be revisited if case circumstances change after exchange of evidence.