England and Wales Case Law

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

AMI Industries, Inc v Martin-Baker Aircraft Company

Patent trial over aircraft ejection-seat headrest technology. The court addressed construction, priority, validity, infringement, and equivalents.

• Patent infringement
• Patent validity
• Sufficiency
• Obviousness
• Novelty
• Doctrine of equivalents

Read case analysis

No Climb Products Limited v Gas Safe Europe Limited

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.

• Patent infringement
• Patent validity
• Construction of patent claims
• Indirect infringement
• Prior art
• Inventive step

Read case analysis

No Climb Products Ltd v Gas Safe Europe Ltd

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.

• Patent infringement
• Patent validity
• Construction of patent claims
• Indirect infringement
• Prior art
• Inventive step

Read case analysis

DSM IP Assets BV & Anor v Algal Omega 3 Limited (In Administration) & Anor

Court of Appeal upheld findings that EP155 was valid and EP801 was invalid for obviousness, dismissing both DSM’s and Mara’s appeals.

• Patent validity
• Obviousness
• Patent infringement
• Interpretation of patent claims
• Patent-validity
• Patent-claim-construction

Read case analysis

DSM IP Assets BV & Anor v Algal Omega 3 Ltd & Anor (Rev1)

DSM IP Assets BV & Anor v Algal Omega 3 Ltd & Anor (Rev1) [2026] EWCA Civ 136 (24 February 2026)

Court of Appeal dismissed Mara’s appeal and upheld the finding that EP155 was valid, rejecting obviousness over Bijl. EP801 remained invalid on the lower court’s reasoning.

• Patent validity
• Obviousness
• Infringement
• Biotechnology patents
• Patent-obviousness
• Claim-construction

Read case analysis

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

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors

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.

• Patent validity
• Novelty
• Anticipation
• Patent construction
• Expert evidence
• Continuous glucose monitoring technology

Read case analysis

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors

The Court of Appeal allowed Abbott’s appeal, holding that the Patents Court’s obviousness analysis was inconsistent with its construction of claim 1.

• Patent validity
• Obviousness
• Claim construction
• Revocation
• Procedural intervention
• Patent-obviousness

Read case analysis

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Incorporated & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1633 (18 December 2025)

Court of Appeal held Abbott’s patent revocation appeal failed on construction and obviousness, but allowed the appeal because the High Court’s obviousness analysis was inconsistent with its claim construction.

• Patent validity
• Obviousness
• Continuous glucose monitoring devices
• Interpretation of patent claims
• Patent-obviousness
• Claim-construction

Read case analysis