Folding Attic Stairs Ltd v The Loft Stairs Company Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 1221 (Pat) (09 June 2009)

Folding Attic Stairs Ltd v The Loft Stairs Company Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 1221 (Pat) (09 June 2009)

The patent is valid. 'Old Stira' did not anticipate or render obvious the claimed process, as it did not disclose presetting the distance between side beams with the intent of avoiding excessive bending of support arms. The prototype shown to the Minister and photographer was not made available to the public in a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1221 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Folding Attic Stairs Limited; First Defendant: The Loft Stairs Company Limited; Second Defendant: Michael Heraghty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Action / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; patent held valid and infringed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Construction of Patent Claims, Disclosure to the Public
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Construction of Patent Claims Disclosure to the Public

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Folding Attic Stairs Limited

Claimant

The Loft Stairs Company Limited

First Defendant

Michael Heraghty

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Action / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent in suit (GB 2319051) is valid over prior art including 'old Stira' and a disclosed prototype; whether the Defendants' product infringes the patent; construction of 'spaced a preset distance' in the patent claim; effect of disclosure to non-experts on patent validity

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is valid. 'Old Stira' did not anticipate or render obvious the claimed process, as it did not disclose presetting the distance between side beams with the intent of avoiding excessive bending of support arms. The prototype shown to the Minister and photographer was not made available to the public in a manner that would anticipate or render the invention obvious, as there was no evidence that the relevant information was perceived or understood by a person skilled in the art. The construction of 'spaced a preset distance' requires intentionality by the manufacturer to avoid excessive bending, not any arbitrary distance. The Defendants' product infringes the patent as construed.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; patent held valid and infringed.

Orders

  • Declaration of validity of GB 2319051
  • Declaration of infringement by Defendants