NIPC Law

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd   [2013] UKSC 16 Supreme Court Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance and Kerr and Lady Hale) This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in  Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303, [2011] Bus LR 1510, [2011] FSR 19 which I had blogged in "Patents: Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd "  on 2 April 2011. The point in this appeal was whether cross-bottling - the practice of replacing the a 1,000 litre bottle  that had been supplied by Schütz (U.K.) Limited, the exclusive licensee of a patent for a type of intermediate bulk carrier ( "IBC" ) like the one pictured above, with one supplied by a third party such as Werit - amounted to making for the purpose of s.60 (1) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 .  In the Patents Court, Mr. Justice Floyd held that it did not (see  Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another   [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat), [2010] Bus LR 1244...

In my case note on Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303 (29 March 2011) of 2 April 2011 in this blog and in my note on Schutz (UK) Ltd and Another v Delta Containers Ltd and Another [2011] EWHC 1173 (Pat) (5 May 2011) in IP North West I referred to the practice of cross-bottling. That practice has already given rise to a patent infringement claim against Werit (UK) Ltd. ( "Werit" ) which Werit won at first instance but lost on appeal. What is "Cross Bottling" The bottles in question are 1,000 litre plastic bottles which are fitted into metal cages and mounted on pallets. The whole assembly is known as an IBC (intermediate bulk carrier) so called because it is smaller than a tanker but larger than a keg. The evolution of this technology was discussed in some detail by Mr. Justice Floyd in paragraphs 7 to 11 of his judgment in the Werit claim. A photo of the assembly appears below. For a time the whole assembly was made by the same ma...