UK: Supreme Court Puts To Bed The Principle Leading To Damages For Infringing An Invalid Patent

Last Updated: 5 March 2014
Article by Stephen Duffield and Dr. Hugh Goodfellow

In a significant recent judgment the Supreme Court (the UK's highest court) has revisited and overturned a legal principle developed by the UK courts over 100 years.

In Virgin Atlantic Airway Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled on the principle of whether a defendant was required to pay damages for an earlier finding of infringement by a UK court (with no further course of appeal in the UK system) of a European patent which no longer exists in the form said to have been infringed. In the present case, this was because the patent had been subsequently amended in opposition proceedings running in parallel before the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) at the European Patent Office (EPO) while the damages enquiry was on-going.


Virgin was seeking £49 million in damages resulting from the infringement of a European patent it owned in relation to flatbed aircraft seating units. The patent was granted in 2007, and shortly after grant Virgin sued in the High Court claiming damages for Zodiac's alleged infringement of the patent. Zodiac counterclaimed for invalidity in the High Court, and in parallel filed an opposition to the patent at the EPO.

European patents can be, and often are, challenged in both the national courts (e.g. the UK) and in central opposition proceedings before the EPO. The effect of the decisions in national courts and the EPO is different, however, because a validity decision of a national court only has national effect, whereas a decision by the EPO has effect in each territory in which the patent has been validated. As noted by the Supreme Court, national proceedings are often much quicker to reach a final decision than the EPO, but the final decisions can conflict, as was the case here.

In early 2009, the High Court judged the patent to be invalid for added matter, but dismissed the attacks that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty or was obvious. It also held that had the patent been valid, the claims would have been infringed by Zodiac. Both parties appealed. Two months later, the EPO's Opposition Division upheld the patent subject to minor amendments which were deemed immaterial to the present dispute. This decision was also appealed.

The Court of Appeal in London heard the appeal in October 2009, and gave judgment reversing the High Court's decision on added matter. It held the patent to be valid and infringed, and issued an order awarding damages. The TBA, however, subsequently held that the claims that had been found infringed by the Court of Appeal were invalid, and accepted amendments that removed them. The operation of law meant that the patent was retroactively deemed to have existed in that amended form from grant. By the time of the TBA's decision, however, infringement and invalidity proceedings before the Court of Appeal had been completed and permission to appeal had been refused by the Supreme Court.

Following the TBA's decision, Zodiac petitioned the Court of Appeal to vary its order awarding damages (the damages enquiry had not yet been completed), but the Court of Appeal issued a decision holding that the order would stand on the basis of the unamended patent. The present judgment results from the appeal of that decision.

The Supreme Court's decision

Before the Supreme Court, Virgin's arguments focussed on previous decisions from the Court of Appeal relating to the same issue of damages on patents that were subsequently amended or revoked. It argued these set out that there was no legal basis for revisiting the question of whether the damages should have been awarded, on the basis of res judicata: once the issue had been finally decided by the courts (i.e. that the unamended patent was valid and infringed), it could not be revisited.

The Supreme Court noted that the Court of Appeal's decision related to the unamended patent, and that res judicata only prevented Zodiac from arguing about the damages awarded based on the patent in that form. Virgin's argument therefore was not relevant to the present appeal because "Zodiac's reliance on the retrospective amendment is a new point which was not raised before. It could not have been raised before, because the decision of the TBA retrospectively amending the patent was made after the order giving effect to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. There are two related reasons why Zodiac cannot be precluded from relying on the decision of the TBA on the enquiry as to damages. One is that they are relying on the more limited terms of a different patent which, by virtue of the decision of the TBA, must at the time of the enquiry be treated as the only one that has ever existed. The other is that Zodiac are not seeking to reopen the question of validity determined by the Court of Appeal".

The Supreme Court also addressed why the previous case law, followed by the Court of Appeal, was wrong. In particular, Lord Neuberger's judgment set out that the Court of Appeal "did not have appropriate regard to the statutory provisions relating to patents, which reflect the nature of a patent and the effect of its revocation. They therefore treated the subsequent decision to revoke the patent as no more than a later determination by another court in other proceedings between different parties". This was because the revocation or limitation of a patent is not just effective between the two parties in the action, but rather between the patentee and the rest of the world. "In other words, the effect of the revocation was that everyone was entitled to conduct their affairs as if the patent had never existed". This meant that in the court's view there could be no damages, because the operation of law meant that there never was a patent that had been infringed.

Additional observations from the court

In obiter comments (albeit agreed with in the judgment of Lord Neuberger), Lord Sumption called into question the guidance given by the Court of Appeal which had earlier said that an English court should normally refuse a stay of its own proceedings if it would be likely to resolve the question of validity significantly earlier then the EPO.

The judges noted a number of problems with this guidance including the fact that if the UK proceedings had been fully concluded and the damages had been paid, then the defendant would be required to bring a claim in restitution to seek recovery of the amounts paid. Further Lord Sumption noted that "even if the EPO opposition proceedings are concluded in time to affect the English proceedings, the uncertainty and waste of costs involved do little credit to our procedures", and suggested that the Patents Court and the Court of Appeal reconsider the guidance.


The judgment goes some way to address a situation that had been considered by a number of commentators to be unfair, but is noted only to apply to situations where at least the enquiry into the damages awarded is on going.

Further, although only made as observations by the Supreme Court judges (which means that the comments are not binding on the lower UK courts), it is likely that the lower courts will now be minded to consider the prospect of, and problems resulting from, potentially conflicting results from the UK and EPO proceedings. This may lead the UK courts to be have a greater inclination to stay proceedings where an EPO opposition has been filed, even though it can often take many years for completion of both first and second instance proceedings before the EPO.

However, if this change does indeed come to pass, it will be a sad day for those who want actions dealt with efficiently. In recent years the UK courts have speeded up their proceedings so that first instance cases can be dispatched within a year or so (with any Appeal finished within a further year); if we will now have to wait until EPO proceedings have been completed, then actions will take very much longer to be resolved (a total of 5 or 6 years for both instances is fairly standard). Whilst the EPO is not averse to accelerating its own proceedings in such scenarios, this is very much the exception rather than the norm.

This judgment also elevates the importance of EPO opposition proceedings and emphasises that it is essential to file an EPO opposition in every instance where infringement of a patent is potentially arguable at any level.

In an interesting footnote to the legal proceedings, shortly after the judgment was given, Virgin agreed to sell the engineering department of its Threesixty Aerospace unit (which was involved in developing Virgin's flatbed seats) to Zodiac. This move has been said by Virgin not to be directly linked to the ruling.

Need advice?

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP is a leading firm of European patent and trade mark attorneys based in London. For more information about our firm and our practice, please visit our website at

This Briefing Note was first published in the IAM IP Newsletter.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.