Farrow Holdings Group Inc v Secretary of State for Defence

Farrow Holdings Group Inc v Secretary of State for Defence

The appeal is dismissed because the hearing before the Hearing Officer was fair, the construction of claim 1 was correct, the evidence regarding prior use was properly assessed, and the claims were obvious over the prior art. The only successful ground was on the sufficiency of evidence for passive heating at Kalamaki, but this did not affect the overall finding of invalidity for lack of inventive step.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Farrow Holdings Group Inc; Respondent/applicant: Secretary of State for Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From Comptroller of Patents Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inventive Step, Obviousness, Prior Use, Claim Construction, Article 6 ECHR, Evidence Assessment
Intellectual Property Patents Inventive Step Obviousness Prior Use Claim Construction Article 6 ECHR Evidence Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farrow Holdings Group Inc

Appellant/respondent

Secretary of State for Defence

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From Comptroller of Patents Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing before the Comptroller's Hearing Officer was unfair under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Proper construction of claim 1 of the patent regarding temperature feature
  3. 3 Whether the patent lacked inventive step over prior art (Kalamaki prior use and EP 0 358 648)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the hearing before the Hearing Officer was fair, the construction of claim 1 was correct, the evidence regarding prior use was properly assessed, and the claims were obvious over the prior art. The only successful ground was on the sufficiency of evidence for passive heating at Kalamaki, but this did not affect the overall finding of invalidity for lack of inventive step.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Patents remain revoked