Esheria England and Wales Case Law
Sign in
England and Wales Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

England and Wales Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter England and Wales case law

Results update automatically as you type.

England and Wales decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual property

Kohler Mira Limited v Norcros Group (Holdings) Limited

The patent claims are invalid for insufficiency due to uncertainty; the specification does not provide a criterion for 'substantially unchanged' flow rate, making the boundary of the claim impossible to determine. Triton's products do not infringe as the result is achieved by other components, not the diverter valve, and the risk of scalding criterion is not the applicable test.

Source excerpt

  • Patent infringement
  • Patent validity
  • Claim construction
  • Insufficiency
  • Uncertainty
Read case analysis
Intellectual property

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd & Anor v ZTE Corporation & Ors

High Court patents judgment on Samsung’s 5G patent. The court addressed skilled person, inventive step, collocation, and plausibility arguments over an NR initial-access claim.

  • Inventive step
  • Collocation
  • Technical effect
  • Plausibility
  • Claim construction
  • Standard essential patents
Read case analysis
Intellectual property

Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited

The claims require weld portions that extend away from the periphery and downwardly towards the bottom of the appliance; Pelican's ModaVi bags do not meet this requirement as their weld portions extend upwardly. The doctrine of equivalents does not extend protection to the variant because the claim structure and specification indicate strict compliance is required. Claim 8 as granted is novel over Grum-Schwensen as the prior art does not clearly and unambiguously disclose the required weld portion configuration when the outlet is folded. Pre-transfer costs should be limited to IPEC scale in t…

Source excerpt

  • Patent infringement
  • Patent validity
  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Claim construction
  • Novelty
  • Costs (ipec and high court)
Read case analysis
Intellectual property [2026] EWCA Civ 93

Salts Healthcare Ltd v Pelican Healthcare Ltd

Salts Healthcare Ltd v Pelican Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 93 (19 February 2026)

Court of Appeal considered patent claim construction, equivalence, novelty and pre-transfer costs in an ostomy appliance dispute between Salts and Pelican.

  • Patent infringement
  • Claim construction
  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Novelty
  • Ostomy appliances
  • Patent-infringement
Read case analysis
Intellectual property [2025] EWCA Civ 1670

Kohler Mira Ltd v Norcros Group (Holdings) Ltd

Kohler Mira Ltd v Norcros Group (Holdings) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1670 (22 December 2025)

Patent appeal about shower valve claims. The Court of Appeal held the key claim language was uncertain and allowed the appeal, revoking the patent and finding no infringement.

  • Patent infringement
  • Claim construction
  • Sufficiency
  • Uncertainty in patent claims
  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Patent-law
Read case analysis
Intellectual property [2025] EWHC 3181 (Pat)

Fujikura Ltd & Anor v Sterlite Technologies Ltd

Fujikura Ltd & Anor v Sterlite Technologies Ltd [2025] EWHC 3181 (Pat) (04 December 2025)

The Patents Court held Fujikura’s amended patent valid and infringed by Sterlite’s Celesta optical fibre cables, rejecting insufficiency, obviousness and clarity challenges.

  • Patent infringement
  • Patent validity
  • Claim construction
  • Obviousness
  • Sufficiency
  • Industrial design
Read case analysis
Intellectual property

Jeff Gosling Limited v Autochair Limited

Claim 1 of the Patent requires both Adjustments 1 and 3 to be stepless; the Apex Assist hoist does not satisfy this requirement as Adjustment 3 is stepped. Indirect infringement fails because fitters would not intentionally implement the invention irresponsibly or contrary to instructions. The doctrine of equivalents does not apply as the Apex Assist does not achieve substantially the same result as the inventive concept.

Source excerpt

  • Patent infringement
  • Claim construction
  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Indirect infringement
Read case analysis
Intellectual property [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC)

Jeff Gosling Ltd v Autochair Ltd

Jeff Gosling Ltd v Autochair Ltd [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC) (08 July 2025)

The court held that JGL’s Apex Assist hoist did not infringe Autochair’s patent, granted a declaration of non-infringement, and dismissed the infringement counterclaim.

  • Patent infringement
  • Claim construction
  • Indirect infringement
  • Doctrine of equivalents
  • Patent-infringement
  • Claim-construction
Read case analysis
Intellectual property law

Well Lead Medical Co, Limited v CJ Medical Limited

Claim 1 is invalid for lack of inventive step over Wan because the skilled person would understand the 'piercing stylus' in Wan as an obturator, making claim 1 obvious. Claim 3 is valid as it was not obvious to secure a flexible, deflectable tip to the distal end of the sheath, and CJ Medical did not establish that this was common general knowledge. The Seplou Sheath size 14 infringes claim 3 on a normal construction; other sizes do not infringe either literally or by equivalence. The patent does not add matter and is not excluded as a method of treatment.

Source excerpt

  • Patent infringement
  • Patent validity
  • Inventive step
  • Claim construction
  • Added matter
  • Method of treatment exclusion
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

England and Wales decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.