Patent claim meaning

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines a UK patent infringement claim, with cross-references to pertinent Practice Notes, Precedents and court forms for practitioner reference and use. Stage one addresses drafting the claim and pre-action steps. Stage two concerns the letter before action asserting infringement. Stage three deals with issuing proceedings. Stage four tackles case management and allocation. Stage five relates to disclosure and the factual and expert evidence. Stage six covers preparing for trial and the trial itself, and stage seven addresses post-trial issues. The Flowchart applies to cases pursued within the Business and Property Courts’ Intellectual Property List, including the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court...

On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK–EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could ground UPC jurisdiction. The judges disagreed, concluding those provisions are principally intended to smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, not to create an adequate legal link...

Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) and another company v Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and other companies; Aylo Premium Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus) and another company v Dish Technologies Llc (a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Colorado, USA) [2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies the stance of the UK Patents Court when faced with a request for an accelerated trial timetable in patent matters before it. Under the Practice Statement, the Court endeavours, where feasible, to have patent actions listed for trial within 12 months of issue counted from the date the claim is issued. Listings begin from the current Trial Window publicised by the Chancery Division Listing Office; however, the Court can fix a trial up to one month before that slot without any formal expedition application, provided doing so enables the matter...

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v Dexcom Inc and others [2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling forms part of the parties’ wider, cross-border battle over CGM technology. The conclusions on infringement and validity are, for the most part, tethered to the facts of this dispute. Nonetheless, the court’s observations on the deployment of expert evidence will interest practitioners, and stand as a further reminder that experts instructed in patent litigation must operate in the correct technical domain. Here, the technological sophistication suggested that the hypothetical skilled team would need a broad span of knowledge and experience, which a lone expert might find difficult to encompass. Where more than one expert is retained, they should be permitted to review each other’s reports so that the combined competencies of the skilled team are mirrored in the evidence in the case at hand...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

Precedent Summary Letter of claim—patent infringement This Precedent provides an outline letter of claim, the expression presently used in the Civil Procedure Rules, and is often described as a letter before action or a cease and desist letter. It concerns alleged patent infringement. The accompanying Drafting Notes set out how to strike a balance between the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols obligations for a letter of claim and the unjustified threats provisions in section 70 of the Patents Act 1977. They also include suggested draft undertakings. Particulars of Claim—patent infringement claim This is a Precedent Particulars of Claim intended for use in a patent infringement action...

This Practice Note reviews the general jurisdiction gateways that may apply irrespective of the nature of the claim (the general grounds). They include: claims seeking relief against a person domiciled in England and Wales (gateway 1) claims against a person over disputes arising from the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment (gateway 1A) applications for an injunction to compel or restrain conduct in England and Wales (gateway 2) additional claims under Part 20 where the person to be served is a necessary or proper party to the original or additional claim (gateway 4) ancillary claims founded on the same or closely related facts as the principal claim (gateway 4A) This Practice Note should be read alongside Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Gateway 1—the remedy is against a person domiciled in England and Wales Gateway 1 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(1)) provides that the claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the...

Claim No.: [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)[ PATENTS COURT OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT ] Between: [ insert name ] — Claimant/Part 20 Defendant [ insert name ] — First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant [ insert name ] — Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Reply and defence to counterclaim REPLY 1 Save that, to the extent the Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim (the Defence) contains admissions of matters pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, or as...

[ Alleged infringer’s name and address ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Insert patent number and title of patent ] We act for [ name and address of client ] (‘our client’). We are writing in relation to your conduct and activities. The Patent(s) Our client is the [ owner OR assignee OR exclusive licensee ] of [ GB Patent number [ add patent number ] OR EP(UK) Patent number [ add patent number ] ], a copy of which is enclosed for your reference (the ‘Patent’). [ Insert name of alleged infringing company ] It has come to our client’s notice that [ name of alleged infringing company ] [ is OR appears to be ] [ manufacturing and/or importing [ description of allegedly infringing product ] (the Product) OR using a process falling within this patent [ description of allegedly infringing process ] (the Process) ], at least since [ insert earliest date of evidence available...

Claim No : [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)[ Patents Court OR Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ] Between:[ insert name ] Claimant/Part 20 Defendantand[ insert name ] First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant[ insert name ] Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Grounds of invalidity Set out below are the Grounds of Invalidity for [ GB Patent OR European Patent (UK) ] [ number ] (the Patent), as identified in the Defence and Counterclaim accompanying these Grounds, and on which the Defendants/Part 20 Claimants intend to rely. The purported invention, in all claims of the Patent, is not patentable because its subject matter lacked novelty in view of the state of the art at the Patent’s priority date [ and common general knowledge ]...