Handi-Craft Company & Anor v B Free World Ltd & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 868 (30 July 2008)

Handi-Craft Company & Anor v B Free World Ltd & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 868 (30 July 2008)

The principle disclosed in Offman would make claim 1 of the patent obvious to the skilled person at the priority date, using only common general knowledge and without inventive step; thus, the patent is invalid for obviousness.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 868
Parties
Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant: Handi-Craft Company; Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant: New Vent Designs Inc; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: B Free World Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Yasmin Berkovitch; Respondent/defendant: Mothercare (UK) Ltd; Respondent/defendant: The Boots Company plc; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Baby B Free Ltd; Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Action Trading Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Amikam Berkovitch; Respondent/defendant: Piero Alberici; Respondent/defendant: Tamir Berkovitch; Respondent/defendant: TTY General Trade Lines Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Dvora Berkovitch; Respondent/defendant: Tamir Tirosh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Patent Validity, Infringement, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patent Law Obviousness Patent Validity Infringement Prior Art

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

Handi-Craft Company

Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant

New Vent Designs Inc

Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant

B Free World Ltd

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Yasmin Berkovitch

Respondent/defendant

Mothercare (UK) Ltd

Respondent/defendant

The Boots Company plc

Respondent/defendant

Baby B Free Ltd

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Action Trading Ltd

Respondent/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Amikam Berkovitch

Respondent/defendant

Piero Alberici

Respondent/defendant

Tamir Berkovitch

Respondent/defendant

TTY General Trade Lines Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Dvora Berkovitch

Respondent/defendant

Tamir Tirosh

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of EP (UK) 0 845 971 is invalid for obviousness over US patent 5,449,098 (Offman)
  2. 2 Whether the skilled person would find the invention obvious in light of Offman and common general knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The principle disclosed in Offman would make claim 1 of the patent obvious to the skilled person at the priority date, using only common general knowledge and without inventive step; thus, the patent is invalid for obviousness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent declared invalid for claims 1-7 unless amended to the satisfaction of the court