Convatec Ltd & Anor v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 520 (02 May 2012)

Convatec Ltd & Anor v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 520 (02 May 2012)

The claims, properly construed, require a blend of gel forming modified cellulose fibres and at least one other type of gel forming fibre that is not modified cellulose. Durafiber, comprising only CES and Tencel fibres, does not infringe the Patent. The judge's construction was correct. If ConvaTec's broader construction were adopted, the claims would be invalid over Bahia due to lack of novelty or obviousness. Claim 3 is valid over Qin as it would not have been obvious to use a CMC/alginate felt as the wound contacting layer in light of the evidence.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 520
Parties
Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Ltd; Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Technologies Inc; Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Inc; Respondent/defendant: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Smith & Nephew plc; Respondent/defendant: Speciality Fibres and Materials Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Interpretation of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Sufficiency 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ConvaTec Ltd

Appellant/claimant

ConvaTec Technologies Inc

Appellant/claimant

ConvaTec Inc

Appellant/claimant

Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Smith & Nephew plc

Respondent/defendant

Speciality Fibres and Materials Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of claims 1 and 3 of European Patent UK No 0 927 013
  2. 2 Whether Durafiber infringes the Patent
  3. 3 Whether claim 3 is invalid over Bahia

Ratio Decidendi

The claims, properly construed, require a blend of gel forming modified cellulose fibres and at least one other type of gel forming fibre that is not modified cellulose. Durafiber, comprising only CES and Tencel fibres, does not infringe the Patent. The judge's construction was correct. If ConvaTec's broader construction were adopted, the claims would be invalid over Bahia due to lack of novelty or obviousness. Claim 3 is valid over Qin as it would not have been obvious to use a CMC/alginate felt as the wound contacting layer in light of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Durafiber does not infringe European Patent UK No 0 927 013.
  • Claim 3 is not invalid over Qin.