UK Court of Appeal interpretation of contributory infringement in patent case
.jpg)
The UK Court of Appeal reversed an aspect of the decision of Floyd J in a recent patent infringement case. The decision is of general interest for its discussion of the interpretation of contributory infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and the Court's views on the following of decisions of other national courts.
The Appeal Court held that the intention to put an invention into effect required under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 need not be of any specific person.
The knowledge and intention requirements of that section were satisfied if, at the time of supply or offer of supply, the supplier knew, or it was obvious in the circumstances, that ultimate users would intend to put the invention into effect.
The Court was astonished that neither party mentioned a decision of a Dutch Court in relation to the same matters and the very same machine in which the appellant appeared as claimant. The Court's view is that an important decision in one member state might well be of strong persuasive value in another member state, particularly where the judgement contained clear reasoning on a point of national patent law which in turn implemented a treaty provision.
The interpretation of the knowledge requirement in relation to contributory infringement in this case would likely be followed by an Irish court given the similarity between section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and section 41(1) of the Patents Act 1992. The Judges' comments on the decisions of other national courts on the interpretation of statues putting international treaties into effect is an interesting one given the continuing delay in efforts to harmonise European patent law. Click on the link below to view the case - Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v Derek Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery) [2010] EWCA Civ 1110, 15 October 2010.
