Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd & ors -v- Warner Lambert Company [2005] IESC 81 (02 December 2005)

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd & ors -v- Warner Lambert Company [2005] IESC 81 (02 December 2005)

Correspondence authored by or on behalf of the patentee to patent offices, expressing the patentee's construction of the claims, is inadmissible as evidence in construing the scope of patent claims, as it reflects only the patentee's own views and not those of an independent skilled addressee.

Citation
[2005] IESC 81
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Ranbaxy Europe Limited and Ranbaxy Ireland Limited; Defendant/respondent: Warner Lambert Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Claim Construction, Admissibility of Evidence, Interpretation of Patents
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Claim Construction Admissibility of Evidence Interpretation of Patents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Ranbaxy Europe Limited and Ranbaxy Ireland Limited

Plaintiffs/appellants

Warner Lambert Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence by patentee's agents to patent offices is admissible as evidence in construing patent claims
  2. 2 Whether such correspondence can be considered as evidence of the understanding of a person skilled in the art

Ratio Decidendi

Correspondence authored by or on behalf of the patentee to patent offices, expressing the patentee's construction of the claims, is inadmissible as evidence in construing the scope of patent claims, as it reflects only the patentee's own views and not those of an independent skilled addressee.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed