Patent disputes

This document provides an overview of the Practice Notes, Precedents and Flowcharts contained in the Patent disputes subtopic. For information about the contents of the Patent transactions and management subtopic, see: Patent transactions and management—overview.

Multi-jurisdictional patent litigation

In today’s global economy, patent proprietors may find it necessary or desirable to enforce their patent rights in multiple countries. There are many things to consider when developing and implementing a global patent litigation strategy, including identifying countries of interest, potential defendants, and relevant patents, and then assessing the legal framework in each country of interest in light of the patent proprietor’s overall litigation goals.

For more information about the strategy considerations involved in multi-jurisdictional patent litigation, see Practice Note: Multi-jurisdictional patent litigation—strategy.

Patent infringement

How to prove patent infringement

For a claim of patent infringement to be successful, a patentee must prove two main things:

•
that the commercial acts done by the alleged infringer, for example, making, selling, or importing a product, have been performed in the UK
•
that the products or processes dealt with by the infringer correspond to the technical ambit of the activities

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

Commission launches consultation on general-purpose AI guidelines

The European Commission has opened a targeted consultation seeking input on guidelines to clarify rules for general-purpose artificial intelligence (GPAI) models under the EU AI Act. The guidelines will explain key concepts including GPAI model definition, provider obligations, and market placement rules.

Court of Appeal finds registered designs valid (Safestand v Weston Homes)

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Safestand against a finding of invalidity against three of its registered designs. The court held that the contested registered designs for builders’ trestles were indeed valid. In its judgment of 2 April 2025, the Court of Appeal agreed with Safestand’s submissions that each of the registered designs depicted a single modular product, rather than different embodiments of a complex product; the designs were therefore not invalid on the basis that they did not depict a single product. The court emphasised once again, as His Honour Judge Hacon had in the first instance decision, the importance of objective interpretation of the images depicting the design. Written by Kaisa Patsalides, senior associate, and Rosie Lapper, associate, at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

IP weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents, as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

The Supreme Court holds that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration (Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.