TRADE

Patent infringement injunction extended 12 months beyond expiry of patentDyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd: ChD (Michael Fysh QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge): 12 January 2001The claimant had obtained judgment against the defendant for infringement of its patent for a vacuum cleaner.

The claimant obtained immediate injunctive relief but the patent was due to expire within a year.

The claimant therefore applied to have the injunction extended for 12 months after the expiry of the patent, and applied for other injunctive relief.

The defendant objected on the grounds that once a patent expired no such relief was available.Peter Prescott QC and Guy Burkill (instructed by Olswang) for the claimant: Christopher Floyd QC and Mark Vanhegan (instructed by Weightmans, Liverpool) for the defendant.Held, granting a 12-month extension of the injunction but refusing further injunctive relief, that under section 60 of the Patents Act 1977 a person had to wait until a patent had expired before taking any practical steps to manufacture a product based on it; that the defendant had contravened that section; that under section 61 of the Patents Act 1977 the claimant could apply for relief; that although a post-expiry injunction was not available under that section, the section was expressed to be without prejudice to any other jurisdiction of the court; that the court had jurisdiction under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to grant an injunction if it appeared just and convenient to do so; and that it was just and convenient to grant a post-expiry injunction in favour of the claimant since it would place it in the position it would have been in had its rights been respected and since the appliance concerned had already been the subject matter of adjudication.