0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

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

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

Discount rate remains negative

The much anticipated revision of the discount rate has arrived with the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, announcing that it will be fixed at -0.25%.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up