Liversidge v Owen Mumford Ltd & Anor [2012] EWPCC 33 (26 July 2012)

Liversidge v Owen Mumford Ltd & Anor [2012] EWPCC 33 (26 July 2012)

The Humira Pen does not infringe the patent because, as a matter of fact, the device operates by stiction between the piston and syringe, not by the protuberances engaging with the syringe as required by the claims. The functional interaction required by features 1I and 1J of claim 1 is not satisfied. The defendants' experimental evidence was preferred. The patent is not invalid for added matter, as the claimed features were sufficiently disclosed in the original application, but the patent is not infringed by the defendants' product.

Citation
[2012] EWPCC 33
Parties
Claimant: Barry Liversidge; First Defendant: Owen Mumford Limited; Second Defendant: Abbott Laboratories Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for revocation dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Added Matter, Novelty, Inventive Step, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Added Matter Novelty Inventive Step Insufficiency

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Liversidge

Claimant

Owen Mumford Limited

First Defendant

Abbott Laboratories Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Humira Pen infringes European Patent (UK) 2 067 496
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, inventive step, or insufficiency

Ratio Decidendi

The Humira Pen does not infringe the patent because, as a matter of fact, the device operates by stiction between the piston and syringe, not by the protuberances engaging with the syringe as required by the claims. The functional interaction required by features 1I and 1J of claim 1 is not satisfied. The defendants' experimental evidence was preferred. The patent is not invalid for added matter, as the claimed features were sufficiently disclosed in the original application, but the patent is not infringed by the defendants' product.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for revocation dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for infringement is dismissed.
  • The counterclaim for revocation is dismissed.