Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors: Poisonous Priority

No items found.
​
May 9, 2013
#
Elements
#
Litigation
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post is about the recent case of Nestec SA & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors concerning Nespresso coffee makers and their coffee capsules.

The judgement’s conclusions raised some interesting legal points, including the finding of invalidity of the priority claim, with the result that the patent lacked novelty over the Priority Document. This echoes the recently topical concept of the “Poisonous Divisional”.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the EPO
10 June 2026
In Agathon v Intercom, the UPC's Milan Local Division confirmed that statements made during EPO prosecution are not binding but can offer low-weight guidance on the skilled person's view — here narrowing 'abuts' against the patentee.
​
Revocation of an order to inspect and preserve evidence as Applicant did not start proceedings on the merits, R. 198.1 RoP
09 June 2026
In Otec v Steros, the UPC's Dusseldorf Local Division revoked an ex parte inspection order after the applicant failed to sue on the merits in time, ordering all preserved evidence returned and destroyed.
​
UPC Court of Appeal reverses infringement ruling in both Germany and UK
05 June 2026
On 2 June 2026 the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division's infringement findings against Kodak in both Germany and the UK, on a prior user right in Germany, and on lack of defendant liability in the UK, while upholding the validity of EP 3511174 as amended and laying down a structured framework for exercising jurisdiction over non-EU designations.
​