0370 270 6000

Patent court says coffee capsules are not a ‘staple commercial product’

23 April 2013

Section 60(3) of the Patents Act says supplying staple commercial products is not contributory patent infringement.

In Nestec v Dualit, Arnold J considered what is a staple commercial product.

He cited Pavel v Sony, which said “in ordinary language, a staple commercial product is a commodity or raw material” and staple commercial products are “of a kind which is needed every day and can be generally obtained”.

He also referred to the Australian decision in Northern Territory of Australia v Collins, which said a staple commercial product “must ordinarily be one which is supplied commercially for a variety of uses”.

As the defendants’ coffee capsules had “no other use other than with a limited range of portionised coffee machines”, they were not staple commercial products.

What amounts to an easily obtained daily necessity varies hugely between organisations, and this element of the test is unenlightening. But the ‘variety of uses’ test is helpful, particularly in the context that most staples are commodities or raw materials.

Related opinions

Right to Work Checks: Changes from 6 April 2022

From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).

View blog

Wide interpretation of “detriment” caused victimisation claim to succeed

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.

View blog

Restrictive Covenants – are changes coming?

Restrictive covenants are widely recognised as a complex area of employment law that is of key importance to many organisations. However more recently, they have become a hot topic with the Government launching their consultation.

View blog

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up