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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions