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

Closest Prior Art Not Quite Close Enough
29 May 2026
WIRPLAST v VILPE (UPC Munich, April 2026): a roof-fan disclosure was a fair starting point, but the patent for a through-roof ventilation pipe with a spirit level survived; the skilled person would not have leaped.
​
Transfer of costs application from Court of Appeal to Court of First Instance rejected
22 April 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to assess costs applications and confirmed they must be filed at the Court of First Instance, rejecting a transfer request in Rematec v Europe Forestry.
​
Revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims
21 April 2026
In Emporia v Seoul Viosys, the UPC Central Division confirmed that the revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged claims. The decision underscores the importance of challenging all relevant claims where full patent revocation is sought.
​