- Followed — JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited & Anor 2023-07-17
“…equivalents which do not fall within the claim on a normal interpretation following the decision of the Supreme Court in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] Bus LR 1731. As the judge explained, this requires the court to answer three questions, the first of which is:…”
- Cited — IPCOM GmbH & Co Kg v Vodafone Group Plc & ors 2021-02-19
“…trine of equivalents, the court must normally ask and answer the three questions set out in the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] Bus LR 1731 at [66]:…”
- Applied — IPCOM GmbH & Co Kg v Vodafone Group Plc & ors 2021-02-19
“…Until the decision of the Supreme Court in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] RPC 21 the extent of the protection given to a patentee by a patent claim was regarded as a unitary process of construction. In applying principles of …”
- Cited — Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. 2019-01-30
“… the world. Moreover, at least within Europe, the courts have not held strictly to Aldous J’s line: see Eli Lilly and Company v Actavis (UK) Limited and others [2017] UKSC 48 at [102] where the Supreme Court made findings of infringement of European patents having effect in France, Italy and Spain. Finally, although the English cour…”
- Explained — Icescape Ltd v Ice-World International BV & Ors 2018-10-10
“…The position remained settled until the decision of the Supreme Court in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48, [2017] RPC 21. Lord Neuberger, with whom the other members of the court agreed, explained (at [54]) that, notwithstanding what Lord Diplock had said in Catnic…”
- Cited — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor 2018-03-28
“…nt”, we could nevertheless have found infringement on the basis of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Actavis UK Limited and others v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48. In that case the Supreme Court held that, in deciding infringement in the case of a variant from the language of the claim, there are two issues to be address…”