Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB

Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB

Given the current form of CPR r31.5(7), there is no longer a prima facie rule in favour of standard disclosure. In this case, the likely probative value of patentee's documents on obviousness does not justify the cost, and there are no special features warranting such disclosure. Therefore, neither standard nor issue-based disclosure on obviousness will be ordered at this stage.

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 Application for Disclosure
Outcome
Application for disclosure on obviousness refused
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Disclosure, Case Management, Proportionality in Litigation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Obviousness Disclosure Case Management Proportionality in Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether standard or issue-based disclosure on obviousness should be ordered against the patentee in a patent revocation and non-infringement action under CPR r31.5(7)

Ratio Decidendi

Given the current form of CPR r31.5(7), there is no longer a prima facie rule in favour of standard disclosure. In this case, the likely probative value of patentee's documents on obviousness does not justify the cost, and there are no special features warranting such disclosure. Therefore, neither standard nor issue-based disclosure on obviousness will be ordered at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure on obviousness refused

Orders

  • No order for standard or issue-based disclosure on obviousness at this stage
  • If Husqvarna changes its case or relies on inventor's documents, it must notify Positec and disclosure may be reconsidered after exchange of evidence