Supreme Court rules on when replacement parts constitute patent infringement
The Supreme Court in Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Limited [2013] UKSC 16 has overturned part of a Court of Appeal ruling on the infringement of a patent relating to large liquid containers. In doing
The Supreme Court in Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Limited [2013] UKSC 16 has overturned part of a Court of Appeal ruling on the infringement of a patent relating to large liquid containers. In doing so, it has provided some much needed guidance on when replacing part of a larger patented article constitutes an act of patent infringement.
The key test as stated in United Wire remains; when does replacement of a part constitute "making" of a patented article. However, this decision gives much needed guidance as to how the Courts should approach answering this question, and what specific considerations can be taken into account. It also shows that replacement of a necessary and substantial claimed feature of a patented article will not necessarily result in an infringement.
Please see further details of this case on the www.ffw.com website.
The key test as stated in United Wire remains; when does replacement of a part constitute "making" of a patented article. However, this decision gives much needed guidance as to how the Courts should approach answering this question, and what specific considerations can be taken into account. It also shows that replacement of a necessary and substantial claimed feature of a patented article will not necessarily result in an infringement.
Please see further details of this case on the www.ffw.com website.