Tamglass Ltd. Oy v Luoyang North Glass Technology Company Ltd. & Anor [2006] EWHC 65 (Ch) (27 January 2006)

Tamglass Ltd. Oy v Luoyang North Glass Technology Company Ltd. & Anor [2006] EWHC 65 (Ch) (27 January 2006)

The patent is valid as the prior art does not anticipate or render it obvious; the defendants infringed by importing, offering, and using the patented process and apparatus; claimant has proper title to sue.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 65 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tamglass Limited Oy; First Defendant: Luoyang North Glass Technology Company Limited; Second Defendant: Novaglaze Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patent found valid; infringement established against both defendants; relief to be determined at later hearing.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Assignment of Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Assignment of Patents

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

Parties

Tamglass Limited Oy

Claimant

Luoyang North Glass Technology Company Limited

First Defendant

Novaglaze Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European patent (UK) No 0261611 is valid
  2. 2 Whether defendants infringed the patent
  3. 3 Whether prior art anticipates or renders the patent obvious

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is valid as the prior art does not anticipate or render it obvious; the defendants infringed by importing, offering, and using the patented process and apparatus; claimant has proper title to sue.

Court Disposition

Patent found valid; infringement established against both defendants; relief to be determined at later hearing.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded wasted costs relating to late evidence and procedural issues, to be assessed.
  • Precise relief and remedies to be determined at subsequent hearing.