Patent claim definition

View the related practice notes about Patent claim

Patent infringement

This Practice Note discusses direct, indirect and contributory infringement of patents. It sets out how the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977) defines prohibited (ie infringing) acts, such as making a product or using a process, and explains how the courts decide whether that product or process falls within the scope of the patent. This Practice Note also addresses key matters relevant to patent infringement proceedings, such as who can sue, when to sue and the burden of proof. Introduction to patent infringementIn order to establish infringement of a patent it is necessary to prove that there has been a prohibited (ie infringing) act committed in relation to a product or process which falls within the scope of the patent. These elements of patent infringement are discussed in Infringing acts and How the courts decide whether a product or process falls within the scope of a patent below.It is important to be aware that there are also certain permitted, non-infringing acts (such as those done for private, non-commercial, or experimental purposes)...

Introduction to revocation of patents

Patents may be revoked, that is, taken off the register of patents, if it is decided that they are invalid in some respect. The effect of revocation is that the patent is cancelled and is meant to be treated as if it had never existed.After a patent has been granted, any person, whether they have a legal interest in seeking revocation or not, can apply to the comptroller or the courts for an order to revoke the patent. The only exception to this is when the revocation application is on the ground of non-entitlement; such a claim can only be brought by the person who thinks he is entitled to the patent. For more about patent entitlement, see Practice Note: Patents—entitlement and co-ownership.Grounds for revocationThe grounds on which a patent may be revoked are that:•the invention is not a patentable invention. This covers lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, lack of industrial applicability and exclusions (section 1 of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977)). For more information about patentability,...

View the related q&as about Patent claim

What developments have there been in springboard relief in patent cases since Smith & Nephew v Convatec [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat)?

What developments have there been in springboard relief in patent cases since Smith & Nephew v Convatec [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat)? We have limited our research to cover springboard relief/injunctions in patent proceedings. The term ‘springboard relief’, in relation to patents, refers to an injunction which is designed to deprive a defendant of a commercial advantage obtained in the period after a patent expires by infringing before expiry—known as a ‘springboard’. For more information, see Practice Note: Remedies in patent proceedings. In Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc, an injunction was requested that would have prevented acts which would never have constituted infringement of the patent as amended. As the judge noted, the important question that therefore arises is whether and in what circumstances the court should grant a final injunction which restrains what would otherwise be a lawful act. In Smith, Birss J confirmed that it is possible for the court to grant a final springboard injunction in respect of acts...

View the related News about Patent claim

AstraZeneca loses bid to revive patent for diabetes drug

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal refused on 16 July 2025 to revive AstraZeneca's intellectual property protections for its billion-dollar diabetes drug, opening the way for generic competition to hit the market.

Pfizer Takes Aim At Moderna's Leftover MRNA Protections

Law360, London: Pfizer asked an appeals court on 10 July 2025 to revoke surplus patent protections underpinning rival Moderna's mRNA vaccine after getting a key patent tossed.