Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA & Anor [2021] EWHC 3032 (Pat) (12 October 2021)

Nicoventures Trading Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA & Anor [2021] EWHC 3032 (Pat) (12 October 2021)

Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced by Philip Morris related to the judge's assessment of obviousness, which is primarily a matter for the trial judge and not suitable for appellate review absent a clear error of law. The judge found no such error and considered the arguments to fall within the discretionary 'jury element' of obviousness.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3032 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/first Part 20 Defendant: Nicoventures Trading Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Philip Morris Products SA; Second Part 20 Defendant: British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Patents Court Proceedings / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing; Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application must be renewed before the Court of Appeal if pursued.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Claim Construction, Permission to Appeal, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Claim Construction Permission to Appeal Infringement

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicoventures Trading Limited

Claimant/first Part 20 Defendant

Philip Morris Products SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patents Court Proceedings / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing; Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on grounds relating to claim construction and obviousness
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on the issue of infringement

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced by Philip Morris related to the judge's assessment of obviousness, which is primarily a matter for the trial judge and not suitable for appellate review absent a clear error of law. The judge found no such error and considered the arguments to fall within the discretionary 'jury element' of obviousness.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application must be renewed before the Court of Appeal if pursued.

Orders

  • Order made in terms of the parties' draft, except as to permission to appeal, which is refused.