Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
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.
The court held that Gas Safe’s DetectaReach and replacement DetectaSmoke cans infringed claims 1, 8 and 9 of No Climb’s patent, which was also upheld as valid.
No Climb Products Ltd v Gas Safe Europe Ltd [2026] EWHC 908 (IPEC) (22 April 2026)
Patent trial on detector-testing apparatus: the court construed claim 1 broadly, found Gas Safe’s products infringed, and upheld validity over cited prior art.
Claim 11 of the patent lacks inventive step because the skilled team would have used BlackTrax or equivalent tracking systems, which were part of the common general knowledge, to implement the claimed system. The patent is also invalid for added matter as it claims at least two electromagnetic radiation sources, only one of which is infrared, which was not disclosed in the original application.
Source excerpt
Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC) (25 July 2025)
The court held that claim 11 of Battlekart’s patent lacked inventive step and was invalid for added matter. The infringement claim against Chaos Karts failed.
Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v AstraZenica AB [2025] EWCA Civ 903 (16 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal and upheld invalidity findings on dapagliflozin’s patent and SPCs for lack of plausibility and arbitrary selection.
Court of Appeal upheld findings that AstraZeneca’s dapagliflozin patent was invalid for lack of inventive step and insufficiency, and was an arbitrary selection from prior art.
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
The High Court held AstraZeneca’s dapagliflozin patent and related SPCs invalid for insufficiency and lack of inventive step.
Generics (UK) Ltd Ltd v Astrazeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat) (28 April 2025)
The Patents Court held that AstraZeneca’s dapagliflozin patent and related SPCs were invalid because the claimed therapeutic effect was not made plausible.
Explore more
