Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors

Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors

'Free of play' in the patent means free of play for practical purposes, not absolute absence of play. The skilled person would understand the priority document as disclosing the invention as claimed, without requiring the lip length or thickness limitations. Therefore, the proposed amended claim is entitled to priority and is infringed by the defendants' products.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Unilin Beheer BV; Appellant/defendant: Berry Floor NV; Appellant/defendant: Information Management Consultancy Design Limited (t/a Responsive Designs); Appellant/defendant: B&Q plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent Infringement) / Appeal From Patents County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Patent Infringement, Priority of Invention, Claim Interpretation
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Patent Infringement Priority of Invention Claim 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unilin Beheer BV

Respondent/claimant

Berry Floor NV

Appellant/defendant

Information Management Consultancy Design Limited (t/a Responsive Designs)

Appellant/defendant

B&Q plc

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent Infringement) / Appeal From Patents County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of 'free of play' in patent claim
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' products infringe the patent as construed
  3. 3 Whether claim 20 is entitled to the claimed priority date

Ratio Decidendi

'Free of play' in the patent means free of play for practical purposes, not absolute absence of play. The skilled person would understand the priority document as disclosing the invention as claimed, without requiring the lip length or thickness limitations. Therefore, the proposed amended claim is entitled to priority and is infringed by the defendants' products.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Judge's holding that all types of product complained of infringed is upheld.
  • Claim 20 and the proposed amended claim 1 are entitled to priority.