Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV & Anor

Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV & Anor

The patent is not entitled to the claimed priority date because the priority document does not disclose the invention as claimed; therefore, the patent is invalid. The claimant's product does not infringe the patent as features D and E are missing. The threats of infringement proceedings were unjustified, and the defendants have no defence under section 70(2A) as there was no evidence they did not know or suspect the patent was invalid.

Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: 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 Action (injunction, Damages, Declaration of Non Infringement, Revocation, Counterclaim for Infringement) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted; threats action succeeds; no defence under s.70(2A) established.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Priority Date, Patent Infringement, Threats of Infringement Proceedings, Relief Under Patents Act 1977 S.70
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Priority Date Patent Infringement Threats of Infringement Proceedings Relief Under Patents Act 1977 S.70

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Icescape Limited

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

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 Action (injunction, Damages, Declaration of Non Infringement, Revocation, Counterclaim for Infringement) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent is entitled to the claimed priority date
  2. 2 Whether the patent is valid
  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 disclose the invention as claimed; therefore, the patent is invalid. The claimant's product does not infringe the patent as features D and E are missing. The threats of infringement proceedings were unjustified, and the defendants have no defence under section 70(2A) as there was no evidence they did not know or suspect the patent was invalid.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; patent revoked; declaration of non-infringement granted; threats action succeeds; no defence under s.70(2A) established.

Orders

  • Patent revoked for invalidity due to lack of entitlement to priority date.
  • Declaration of non-infringement granted to claimant.