Wheatley & Anor v Drillsafe Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 209 (5 July 2000)

Wheatley & Anor v Drillsafe Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 209 (5 July 2000)

The patent is valid as the inventive concept was not obvious to the skilled person in 1993, and the prior art did not disclose or render obvious the combination of features in claim 1. However, method 2 does not infringe claim 1 because the presence of a central probe, even if retractable and not penetrating the tank, means the cutter is not 'centre-less' as properly construed.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 209
Parties
Appellant/proprietor: Davina Wheatley; Appellant/exclusive Licensee: Bortec Limited; First Defendant: Drillsafe Ltd; Respondents: Other Defendants (not named)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Ferris J Dated 23 February 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; patent held valid; no infringement by method 2.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Interpretation of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Claim Construction Obviousness Interpretation of Claims

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davina Wheatley

Appellant/proprietor

Bortec Limited

Appellant/exclusive Licensee

Drillsafe Ltd

First Defendant

Other Defendants (not named)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Ferris J Dated 23 February 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether method 2 infringes claim 1 of EP 0 689 488
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for obviousness over common general knowledge, the Veeder Root use, and Japanese patent No. 57-184658
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'centre-less hole cutter' in the context of the patent

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is valid as the inventive concept was not obvious to the skilled person in 1993, and the prior art did not disclose or render obvious the combination of features in claim 1. However, method 2 does not infringe claim 1 because the presence of a central probe, even if retractable and not penetrating the tank, means the cutter is not 'centre-less' as properly construed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; patent held valid; no infringement by method 2.

Orders

  • Order of Ferris J set aside as to invalidity and revocation of the patent.
  • Declaration that the patent is valid.