.png)
The IPKat has just picked this Court of Appeal patent decision up off today's BAILII additions: it's Burnden Group plc v Ultraframe (UK) Ltd and another; Burnden Group plc v Northstar Systems Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 867 (Lords Justices Kennedy, Chadwick and Jacob). Burnden owned a patent for components used in the construction of conservatory roofs. In two sets of patent infringement proceedings (one against Ultraframe, the other against Northstar) the defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent for want of novelty..png)
In the Patents County Court Judge Michael Fysh QC ordered the patent revoked; his decision has just been upheld by the Court of Appeal. It seems that the contested claims in Burnden's patent were neither novel nor inventive in the light of the prior art. Given by Lord Justice Jacob, this is a very "techie" judgment which turns greatly on their Lordships' appreciation of the facts rather than on its analysis of the law.The IPKat is, as usual, open-mouthed at the ability of the judiciary to get their minds round the technical details of patents. Is it their excellent education and general knowledge, he wonders, or is it the high level of explanation given to the judges by counsel on both sides?
CONSERVATORY ROOF COMPONENT PATENT EXPOSED
![CONSERVATORY ROOF COMPONENT PATENT EXPOSED]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html