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
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.
Accord Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Regents of the University of California & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 936 (23 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an obviousness appeal over a prostate-cancer patent and SPC, upholding the Patents Court’s finding that the claims were not proved obvious.
The patent is valid and infringed. The claims are sufficiently enabled and inventive over the prior art. The construction of 'micro-duct' includes ducts up to 16mm internal diameter as a matter of common general knowledge. The experimental evidence, though imperfect, establishes infringement of the Celesta 432F cable and, by extrapolation, other Celesta cables with fibre counts of 144, 288, and 432. The patent's technical contribution lies in identifying seal tightness as affecting air-blown performance and specifying recess area ranges to optimise this. Obviousness attacks fail due to lack o…
Source excerpt
The trial will proceed in June 2024 on the streamlined issues, excluding the 'skinny label' infringement allegations and the Allocca prior art, as the claimants have sufficiently reduced the scope of the case to fit the available trial slot. The 'skinny label' issues are stayed with liberty to apply to lift the stay if circumstances change. The claimants must give an undertaking to provide six weeks' notice before any skinny label launch.
Source excerpt
Accord Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Regents of the University of California & Anor [2024] EWHC 2524 (Pat) (08 October 2024)
The Patents Court rejected challenges to the enzalutamide patent and SPC, holding that prior-art Slides and Poster did not make the invention obvious.
The High Court dismissed patent revocation and invalidity actions over enzalutamide, holding the claims not obvious over the Poster or Slides and the patent sufficient and plausible.
Sycurio Ltd v PCI-PAL PLC & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 606 (04 June 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that claim 9 of Sycurio’s patent was not limited to direct transmission outside the call centre, and upheld revocation for obviousness.
Explore more
