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 Ltd

AMI Industries, Inc v Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1027 (Pat) (01 May 2026)

The High Court held that Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd infringed AMI Industries, Inc’s patent, upheld the patent’s validity, and granted injunctive and monetary relief.

• Patent infringement
• Validity of patent
• Relief for infringement
• Patent-infringement
• Patent-validity
• Intellectual-property

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

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

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

Parsons v Convatec Ltd

Parsons v Convatec Ltd [2026] EWHC 325 (Pat) (16 February 2026)

The Patents Court held that Convatec Ltd infringed Parsons’ patent, upheld the patent’s validity, granted an injunction, ordered damages to be assessed, and awarded costs.

• Patent infringement
• Validity of patent
• Injunctions
• Patent-infringement
• Patent-validity

Read case analysis

Banham Patent Locks Ltd v Rogers (t/a J Rogers & Sons)

Banham Patent Locks Ltd v Rogers (t/a J Rogers & Sons) [2026] EWHC 528 (Pat) (10 February 2026)

The Patents Court granted summary judgment for Banham in a claim against a locksmith for patent and trade mark infringement and breach of undertaking.

• Patent infringement
• Trade mark infringement
• Breach of undertaking
• Summary judgment
• Default judgment
• Strike out

Read case analysis