JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 276 (22 March 2024)

JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 276 (22 March 2024)

Switching from one longitudinal load moment control system (LLMC) to another does not constitute 'disabling' the LLMC as required by claim 1 of EP 965; the claim requires disablement that permits the operator to operate actuator devices at will, which is not achieved by mere switching. Both MLD and WRLD in Aichi are LLMCs within the claim, but the disablement feature is not satisfied by switching between them.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 276
Parties
Claimant/appellant: J. C. Bamford Excavators Limited; Defendant/respondent: Manitou UK Limited; Defendant/respondent: Manitou BF S. A.; Amicus: The Comptroller General for Patents, Trade Marks and Designs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim 1 of EP 965 not invalid over Aichi.
Legal Topics
Inventive Step, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Obviousness
Intellectual Property Patent Law Inventive Step Patent Validity Claim Construction Obviousness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. C. Bamford Excavators Limited

Claimant/appellant

Manitou UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Manitou BF S. A.

Defendant/respondent

The Comptroller General for Patents, Trade Marks and Designs

Amicus

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of EP (UK) 2 263 965 is invalid for lack of inventive step over Japanese patent application No. 2000-329073 (Aichi)
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'longitudinal load moment control system' (LLMC) in claim 1
  3. 3 Whether switching between two LLMCs constitutes 'disabling' under the patent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Switching from one longitudinal load moment control system (LLMC) to another does not constitute 'disabling' the LLMC as required by claim 1 of EP 965; the claim requires disablement that permits the operator to operate actuator devices at will, which is not achieved by mere switching. Both MLD and WRLD in Aichi are LLMCs within the claim, but the disablement feature is not satisfied by switching between them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim 1 of EP 965 not invalid over Aichi.

Orders

  • Order for revocation of EP 965 overturned