tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post811135498175211121..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: When Werit finds Merit: UK Supreme Court okays spare partsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91118088997908700072013-10-09T22:00:57.307+01:002013-10-09T22:00:57.307+01:00Further to my comment yesterday, I have now found ...Further to my comment yesterday, I have now found http://patlit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/mission-impossible-following-epo.html in which part of the original judgement is quoted, and it can be seen that the new version is different. There is also a comment there saying that the judgment has "now been surreptitiously rewritten" so I am clearly far from the first to spot this. The amended passage does read like a bit of a dog's breakfast, as they were no doubt trying to find something that was true, relevant to the case and also vaguely similar to the original wording.<br /><br />My question still stands - what are the rules by which courts can do this sort of thing? And surely they must say they are doing so - surely you can't just have the law change invisibly from day to day?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25319765355431172282013-10-08T23:03:32.620+01:002013-10-08T23:03:32.620+01:00Has this judgement been altered since this item wa...Has this judgement been altered since this item was first posted? On reading it today, paragraph 39 seems to be saying "any fool knows there is no EPO judgement relating to infringement". I seem to remember it as paragraph 38 saying more along the lines of "Nowadays we ought to decide infringement the way the EPO does", followed by a criticism of the parties for not bringing the appropriate judgements to the court's attention. See MaxDrei's comment above.<br /><br />If so, to what extent are courts allowed to tamper with judgements they have made, and are they obliged to publish details of this?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81358297923545126572013-03-13T18:11:44.832+00:002013-03-13T18:11:44.832+00:00The simplicity of Floyd's approach has a lot m...The simplicity of Floyd's approach has a lot more real world appeal than Lord Neuberger's subtly nuanced answer. We now seem to have to take everything including the kitchen sink into account and somewhere in there - as number 7 of 8 general principles we can consider whether or not considering something to be infringement is stifling reasonable competition. Putting the inventive concept to the forefront seemed to me an excellent idea, though you have to admire the elegant mind that can contrive such a decision to get to the right answer and sit consistently with United Wire. I just think it's a shame that it ended up being common ground that supplying plastic bottles alone was always going to be infringement, but if the defendants had common cause it was probably better for them not to be fighting each other.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8875442180968916292013-03-13T14:36:59.640+00:002013-03-13T14:36:59.640+00:00If there was no "making" but only repair...If there was no "making" but only repairing, then a method of making would fail as well, wouldn't it?<br /><br />See para 38. What's all this about deferring to the vast experience the EPO has in trying actions for patent infringement?<br /><br />First HGS and now this para 38. Is there no limit to the lengths UKSC will go to, to show themselves to be Good Europeans?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3215451186326693612013-03-13T13:34:19.570+00:002013-03-13T13:34:19.570+00:00I'm not very familiar with this area of case l...I'm not very familiar with this area of case law, but I notice the patent only has product claims, and I wonder if a claim to a method of making the product (I'm assuming it would have been too cheeky to try for a method of repairing) would have saved the day for the patentee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com