Zeno Corp (Formerly Known As Tyrell Inc) & Anor v BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH & Anor [2009] EWHC 1829 (Pat) (29 July 2009)

Zeno Corp (Formerly Known As Tyrell Inc) & Anor v BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH & Anor [2009] EWHC 1829 (Pat) (29 July 2009)

The Zeno device does not infringe the patent because it operates at a temperature below the claimed range and for a duration exceeding the maximum claimed; there is no evidence it is suitable for treating insect stings or bites as required by the claim. The patent is not anticipated by the Li prior art because Li does not disclose a device in which both temperature and duration are controlled by the device itself. The inventive concept is the dual control of temperature and time by the device, not the user.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1829 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Zeno Corporation; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Adept Scientific PLC; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Riemser Arzneimittel AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity (counterclaim) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim for infringement dismissed; patent held valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Construction, Novelty, Obviousness, Threats of Infringement Proceedings
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Construction Novelty Obviousness Threats of Infringement Proceedings

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zeno Corporation

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Adept Scientific PLC

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Riemser Arzneimittel AG

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity (counterclaim) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Zeno device infringes EP (UK) No. 1 231 875
  2. 2 Proper construction of the patent claims (temperature, time, suitability)
  3. 3 Whether the patent is anticipated by prior art (Li)

Ratio Decidendi

The Zeno device does not infringe the patent because it operates at a temperature below the claimed range and for a duration exceeding the maximum claimed; there is no evidence it is suitable for treating insect stings or bites as required by the claim. The patent is not anticipated by the Li prior art because Li does not disclose a device in which both temperature and duration are controlled by the device itself. The inventive concept is the dual control of temperature and time by the device, not the user.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement dismissed; patent held valid.

Orders

  • Declaration of non-infringement in favour of Zeno Corporation and Adept Scientific PLC
  • No order for revocation of the patent