Limited (Or No) Disclosure On Validity In The UK

One feature of UK patent litigation is the potential for disclosure of documents by the parties, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs). The Court (Birss J) gave recent guidance on when disclosure may not be ordered in Positec Power Tools (Europe) Ltd & Ors v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat) (10 May 2016).

Positec had brought the case alleging Husqvarna's patent, EP (UK) 1 512 053 relating to robotic lawnmowers, was invalid. Husqvarna denied this and alleged infringement, although there were only a few sample instances. At the Case Management Conference, Husqvarna argued for no disclosure on the issue of obviousness, pointing to the recently revised CPR 31 (governing disclosure). Birss J noted under rule 31.5(7) the overriding objective and need to limit disclosure to that which is necessary to deal with the case justly. He also noted that it is only one of six options to order "standard disclosure" (which requires a party to disclose (a) the documents on which