Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Freres [2010] EWCA Civ 1049 (11 October 2010)

Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Freres [2010] EWCA Civ 1049 (11 October 2010)

The claim in the patent covers both processes where the maltotriitol (or its precursor) content is actively adjusted and those where it is merely checked and found suitable, with no adjustment. The patent is therefore anticipated by prior art, and the judge's construction was correct. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1049
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Roquette Frères
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Anticipation, Obviousness, Infringement, European Patent Convention Interpretation
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Anticipation Obviousness Infringement European Patent Convention Interpretation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Roquette Frères

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the claim in European Patent (UK) No 0 905 138
  2. 2 Whether the patent is anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Whether the patent amounts to a discovery rather than an invention

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in the patent covers both processes where the maltotriitol (or its precursor) content is actively adjusted and those where it is merely checked and found suitable, with no adjustment. The patent is therefore anticipated by prior art, and the judge's construction was correct. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent declared invalid and revoked
  • No need to consider Respondent's Notice or other grounds