Blue Gentian LLC & Anor v Tristar Products (UK) Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 746 (22 July 2015)

Blue Gentian LLC & Anor v Tristar Products (UK) Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 746 (22 July 2015)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made no error of principle in finding that the invention was not obvious in light of Ragner or McDonald. The judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Blue Gentian's expert and to conclude that neither prior art reference rendered the claimed invention obvious to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 746
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Blue Gentian LLC; Claimant/respondent: E Mishan & Sons Inc (trading as Emson); Defendant/appellant: Tristar Products (UK) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Tristar Products Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Prior Art

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Gentian LLC

Claimant/respondent

E Mishan & Sons Inc (trading as Emson)

Claimant/respondent

Tristar Products (UK) Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Tristar Products Inc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the invention claimed in UK Patent No 2 490 276 was obvious in light of prior art (Ragner and McDonald)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in rejecting the obviousness attacks based on Ragner and McDonald

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made no error of principle in finding that the invention was not obvious in light of Ragner or McDonald. The judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Blue Gentian's expert and to conclude that neither prior art reference rendered the claimed invention obvious to the skilled person. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Tristar is dismissed.