The Court of Appeal has ruled in Virgin Atlantic Airways v Jet Airlines (India) & Zodiac Seats UK and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1713 that the English Courts have no general power to assess the validity of a patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO).
This is the latest patent judgment relating to Virgin Atlantic Airways’ three airline seat patents (EP (UK) 2 272 711 (711 patent), EP (UK) 2 289 734 (734 patent) and EP (UK) 1 495 908 (908 patent)) and their alleged infringement by Zodiac Seats UK, a seat manufacturer, and several airlines (the defendants).
A number of issues were considered in this appeal. In respect of the 734 patent, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the of the 908 patent, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the first instance judge had erred in deciding it was not infringed and whether or not the judge should have declared the 908 patent “a nullity” since the UK designation only came about as the result of an administrative error at the EPO.
The EPO previously considered arguments based on the procedural errors in respect of the UK designation and rejected them, as did the English High Court when this line of argument was raised as a defence to infringement. In this regard, the defendants relied on arguments based on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)—the right to a fair trial—before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning of the High Court on the questions of validity and non-infringement. More interestingly, it held that the English courts have no general power to assess the validity of patents granted by the EPO, except as specified in the European Patent Convention 2000, as such a power would undercut the European patent system.
11/02/14 Hiroshi Sheraton/Rohan Massey/Boris Uphoff/Vincent Schröder/Alexander Harguth/McDermott Will & Emery/National Law Review
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
This is the latest patent judgment relating to Virgin Atlantic Airways’ three airline seat patents (EP (UK) 2 272 711 (711 patent), EP (UK) 2 289 734 (734 patent) and EP (UK) 1 495 908 (908 patent)) and their alleged infringement by Zodiac Seats UK, a seat manufacturer, and several airlines (the defendants).
A number of issues were considered in this appeal. In respect of the 734 patent, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the of the 908 patent, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the first instance judge had erred in deciding it was not infringed and whether or not the judge should have declared the 908 patent “a nullity” since the UK designation only came about as the result of an administrative error at the EPO.
The EPO previously considered arguments based on the procedural errors in respect of the UK designation and rejected them, as did the English High Court when this line of argument was raised as a defence to infringement. In this regard, the defendants relied on arguments based on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)—the right to a fair trial—before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning of the High Court on the questions of validity and non-infringement. More interestingly, it held that the English courts have no general power to assess the validity of patents granted by the EPO, except as specified in the European Patent Convention 2000, as such a power would undercut the European patent system.
11/02/14 Hiroshi Sheraton/Rohan Massey/Boris Uphoff/Vincent Schröder/Alexander Harguth/McDermott Will & Emery/National Law Review
