Prosecution history estoppel in the UK?

The doctrine of 'prosecution history estoppel' (PH estoppel) as developed in the United States has strong intuitive appeal, especially when applied to counterbalance a related patent law principle, the doctrine of equivalents. The doctrines are receiving increasing attention in US patent decisions, to the point where one patent litigator recently compared them to "two cars that keep bumping fenders. They are frequently returned to the shop for repairs". Could PH estoppel find its way into UK patent law? This article briefly examines the doctrine, its evolution in the US and the problems associated with importing the doctrine into the UK. As the EU legislation stands, Article 69 and the Protocol to the European Patent Convention (EPC) pose serious obstacles to using the doctrine directly in claim construction. However there appears to be some scope to apply the doctrine as a limited form of defence in infringement actions.

Estoppel in the face of consumer protection in land transactions- judicial reasoning or judicial intuition

Nationally, there is much legislation regulating land sale transactions, particularly in relation to seller disclosure of information. The statutes require strict compliance by a seller failing which, in general, a buyer can terminate the contract. In a number of instances, when buyers have sought to exercise these rights, sellers have alleged that buyers have either expressly or by conduct waived their rights to rely upon these statutes. This article examines the nature of these rights in this context, whether they are capable of waiver and, if so, what words or conduct might be sufficient to amount to waiver. The analysis finds that the law is in a very unsatisfactory state, that the operation of those rules that can be identified as having relevance are unevenly applied and concludes that sellers have, in the main, been unsuccessful in defeating buyers' statutory rights as a result of an alleged waiver by those buyers.

Lexis Nexis Questions and Answers : Equity and Trusts [4th Ed.]

"LexisNexis Questions and Answers: Equity and Trusts provides students with a clear and systematic approach to successfully analysing and answering assessment questions on equity and trusts. Each chapter commences with a discussion of key principles and issues including a summary of relevant leading cases and legislation for effective revision. Examples of written questions with fact scenarios follow, each with a suggested answer plan, sample answer and comments on how the answer might be viewed by an examiner. Readers are provided with advice on common errors to avoid when answering questions and practical hints and tips on how to achieve higher marks. Features • Summary of key issues helps students revise key areas before attempting problem questions • Sample questions with model answers assist students with effective exam study preparation"--publisher website

Equity in Australian estate litigation

Equitable claims are increasingly arising in Australian estate litigation, particularly in conjunction with family provision applications. Since the leading decision in Bridgewater v Leahy, in addition to undue influence and unconscionable bargain claims, actions based on equitable estoppel, constructive and resulting trusts, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of legislative duties that mirror equitable obligations are increasingly being brought in contemporary estate litigation. Such litigation often raises challenging issues for claimants, including evidentiary hurdles and allegations of undue delay, especially when claims are made post-mortem in relation to inter vivos dealings with property. Accordingly, solicitors need to ensure that they fully understand the nature and potential application of equitable claims in estate litigation, or face the prospect of incurring liability to clients for professional negligence. This article explores recent trends in Australian estate litigation involving equitable claims.