Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 199 (30 March 2017)

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 199 (30 March 2017)

The skilled person, reading the patent in light of common general knowledge, would understand that the 'penetration barrier' required by claim 1 is achieved by the fusible yarn bonding with other yarns to increase the tensile strength of the fabric tube, not by forming a discrete, continuous layer. The patent does not require a continuous liner, and the inclusion of fusible yarn to increase penetration resistance in tubular fabric was not common general knowledge at the priority date. Therefore, H&M's products fell within the claims as properly construed, and H&M breached the Settlement Agreement.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 199
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited; Defendant/appellant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Settlement Agreement Breach, Interpretation of Patent Claims, Common General Knowledge in Patent Law
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Contract Law Patent Construction Settlement Agreement Breach Interpretation of Patent Claims Common General Knowledge in Patent Law

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited

Claimant/respondent

H&M Hennes & Mauritz Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct construction of claim 1 of UK patent number 2 309 038 regarding the requirement for a 'penetration barrier'?
  2. 2 Did H&M breach the terms of the Settlement Agreement by dealing in products falling within the patent claims as properly construed?

Ratio Decidendi

The skilled person, reading the patent in light of common general knowledge, would understand that the 'penetration barrier' required by claim 1 is achieved by the fusible yarn bonding with other yarns to increase the tensile strength of the fabric tube, not by forming a discrete, continuous layer. The patent does not require a continuous liner, and the inclusion of fusible yarn to increase penetration resistance in tubular fabric was not common general knowledge at the priority date. Therefore, H&M's products fell within the claims as properly construed, and H&M breached the Settlement Agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by H&M Hennes & Mauritz Limited is dismissed.
  • The construction of the patent claim as found by the High Court is upheld.