Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV & Anor [2017] EWHC 42 (Pat) (23 January 2017)

Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV & Anor [2017] EWHC 42 (Pat) (23 January 2017)

The patent is not entitled to the claimed priority date because the priority document does not directly and unambiguously disclose the subject-matter of claim 1; as a result, the patent is invalid due to prior use. The claimant's product does not infringe the patent as features D and E are not present. The defendants have no defence under section 70(2A) as no evidence was led to support lack of knowledge or suspicion of invalidity at the time of threats.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 42 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Icescape Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Ice-World International BV; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Ice-World UK BV; Defendant: Steven Bottema; Part 20 Defendant: Adrian Dann
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Action With Counterclaim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim succeeds; patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted; threats action succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Priority Date, Threats of Infringement Proceedings, Declaratory Relief
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Priority Date Threats of Infringement Proceedings Declaratory Relief

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Icescape Limited

Claimant

Ice-World International BV

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Ice-World UK BV

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Steven Bottema

Defendant

Adrian Dann

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Action With Counterclaim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent in suit (EP(UK) 1462755 B1) is entitled to its claimed priority date
  2. 2 Whether the patent is valid in light of prior use
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's product infringes the patent

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is not entitled to the claimed priority date because the priority document does not directly and unambiguously disclose the subject-matter of claim 1; as a result, the patent is invalid due to prior use. The claimant's product does not infringe the patent as features D and E are not present. The defendants have no defence under section 70(2A) as no evidence was led to support lack of knowledge or suspicion of invalidity at the time of threats.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeds; patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted; threats action succeeds.

Orders

  • Patent EP(UK) 1462755 B1 revoked
  • Declaration of non-infringement granted to Icescape Limited