What happens to a damages award for patent infringement when the patent is later revoked or amended?
The Supreme Court has held that where a patent is valid and infringed, and that patent is subsequently revoked or amended (whether in England or at the European Patent Office), the defendant is entitled to rely on the revocation or amendment on the inquiry to damages.
In Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd, Zodiac had been subject to a Court of Appeal decision that held that it had infringed one of Virgin’s European patents and an order was made, among other things, for an inquiry as to damages. Subsequent to the Court of Appeal decision, the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office ruled that the relevant claims of Virgin’s patent were invalid as they were anticipated in the prior art. It retrospectively amended the patent so as to remove, with effect from the date of grant, all the relevant claims.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Virgin was, as it maintained, nonetheless entitled to an inquiry as to damages. Essentially, Virgin relied on the doctrine of res judicata. This is the doctrine that prevents a party from re-litigating any claim or defence already litigated or that could have been litigated previously. The doctrine is intended to ensure the finality of judgments and to protect litigants from multiple litigation involving the same claims or issues. Virgin contended that for Zodiac to rely on the TBA’s amendment to the patent would be inconsistent with the orders made by the Court of Appeal. Zodiac’s submission was that the issue of res judicata did not arise because the issue was not one that had been addressed by the Court of Appeal as the relevant claims, considered before by the Court of Appeal, were now deemed in fact never to have existed. The amended patent, in the form that now existed, had never been considered by the Court of Appeal…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Landlords must protect tenants’ deposits and provide tenants with prescribed information, regardless of when the tenancy commenced and when the deposit was received.
In the Yam Seng case, the court was willing to imply a duty of good faith to give business efficacy to a commercial contract. Since that case, the law has been somewhat uncertain.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.