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
Patent trial over aircraft ejection-seat headrest technology. The court addressed construction, priority, validity, infringement, and equivalents.
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.
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
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.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1687 (22 December 2025)
Court of Appeal partly allowed Abbott’s patent appeal on novelty, rejecting anticipation findings for EP 627 and one ground on EP 223, but upholding other EP 223 findings.
Modernatx Inc v Pfizer Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1032 (01 August 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Pfizer/BioNTech’s appeal, holding that Moderna’s EP949 claim 3 was novel and not obvious over the UPenn prior art.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 of GB 2 495 509 and Claims 1, 12 and 14 of GB 2 495 566 are valid and infringed. Claim 5 of GB 2 495 509 is not independently valid for lack of novelty over Ueda. The PSA is a lighting support design engineer, not a specialist in public infrastructure safety. The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the inventive concepts of integrating anti-climb measures into lighting supports as claimed. The Defendant's product infringes the valid claims as admitted.
Source excerpt
Nador Cott Protection SAS v Asda Stores Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 941 (Pat) (16 April 2025)
The Patents Court refused a stay of plant breeders’ rights infringement proceedings pending a nullity challenge before the UK Plant Varieties Office, and allowed a conditional defence amendment.
DW Windsor Ltd v Urbis Schreder Ltd [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC) (14 March 2025)
Patent validity and infringement dispute over pathway lighting supports. The court held the cited claims valid and infringed, and rejected novelty and obviousness attacks.
Explore more
