Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat) (31 March 2010)

Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat) (31 March 2010)

The court held that the Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does not infringe claim 1 of EP(UK) 0 370 307 because the requirement for common tangential planes is not met; the degree of offset in the Schütz cage provides a ledge with potential for climbing, contrary to the claim. However, the Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does fall within the claims of EP(UK) 0 734 967. The patents were found valid; the attacks on inventive step and insufficiency failed. Delta's acts of cross-bottling amount to 'making' the patented product, so Werit's supply of bottles constitutes contributory infringement under section 60(2). There was no exhaustion of rights or implied licence. The Protechna Agreement did...

Citation
[2010] EWHC 660 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Schütz (U. K.) Limited; First Defendant: Werit UK Limited; Second Defendant: Protechna SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Action / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Partial success for claimant; patents held valid; infringement found in respect of EP(UK) 0 734 967 but not EP(UK) 0 370 307; no defence under section 44; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Inventive Step, Insufficiency, Contributory Infringement, Exhaustion of Rights, Implied Licence
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Inventive Step Insufficiency Contributory Infringement Exhaustion of Rights +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schütz (U. K.) Limited

Claimant

Werit UK Limited

First Defendant

Protechna SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Action / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the patents (EP(UK) 0 370 307 and EP(UK) 0 734 967) valid?
  2. 2 Do Schütz's IBCs cross-bottled with Werit bottles fall within the scope of the patents?
  3. 3 Is cross-bottling 'making' the patented product?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does not infringe claim 1 of EP(UK) 0 370 307 because the requirement for common tangential planes is not met; the degree of offset in the Schütz cage provides a ledge with potential for climbing, contrary to the claim. However, the Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does fall within the claims of EP(UK) 0 734 967. The patents were found valid; the attacks on inventive step and insufficiency failed. Delta's acts of cross-bottling amount to 'making' the patented product, so Werit's supply of bottles constitutes contributory infringement under section 60(2). There was no exhaustion of rights or implied licence. The Protechna Agreement did...

Court Disposition

Partial success for claimant; patents held valid; infringement found in respect of EP(UK) 0 734 967 but not EP(UK) 0 370 307; no defence under section 44; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Declaration of validity of EP(UK) 0 370 307 and EP(UK) 0 734 967
  • Declaration of non-infringement of EP(UK) 0 370 307