One of the problems in patent disputes in this country is that in some circumstances the ‘final decision’ on the validity of a patent will be taken by the national court and in some circumstances it will be taken by the European Patent Office (EPO).
This causes particular problems when there is a decision made by one authority which is then considered, and possibly reversed, by the other. Recently, such a case was considered by the Court of Appeal. At issue were the damages due for the infringement of a patent for flooring as a result of a UK court ruling. The patent was ruled valid in the UK and this decision has been referred to the EPO. The companies ordered to pay the damages argued that payment should be delayed pending the EPO’s decision.
The Court’s decision was that the payment of the damages could not be countermanded because of the challenge to the patent in the EPO. It would be unfair for the businesses involved to have an extended period of uncertainty. Jacob LJ concluded that “where a final decision has been made on a fair contest between the parties, that should stand as the final answer between them.”
For businesses reliant on their IP this decision means that if they are involved in a challenge in respect of a patent, they should ensure that they muster their evidence and present the best possible case at the first hurdle.
This causes particular problems when there is a decision made by one authority which is then considered, and possibly reversed, by the other. Recently, such a case was considered by the Court of Appeal. At issue were the damages due for the infringement of a patent for flooring as a result of a UK court ruling. The patent was ruled valid in the UK and this decision has been referred to the EPO. The companies ordered to pay the damages argued that payment should be delayed pending the EPO’s decision.
The Court’s decision was that the payment of the damages could not be countermanded because of the challenge to the patent in the EPO. It would be unfair for the businesses involved to have an extended period of uncertainty. Jacob LJ concluded that “where a final decision has been made on a fair contest between the parties, that should stand as the final answer between them.”
For businesses reliant on their IP this decision means that if they are involved in a challenge in respect of a patent, they should ensure that they muster their evidence and present the best possible case at the first hurdle.