Everseal Stationery Products Ltd v Document Management Solutions Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 842 (IPEC) (01 April 2015)

Everseal Stationery Products Ltd v Document Management Solutions Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 842 (IPEC) (01 April 2015)

Claim 1 of the Patent lacks novelty over the Viking Mailer, which was made available to the public before the priority date and possessed all relevant features including irreversible self-sealing under finger pressure. Claim 7 does not lack novelty over the Viking Mailer as the evidence did not inevitably establish...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 842 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: Everseal Stationery Products Limited; First Defendant: Document Management Solutions Limited; Second Defendant: Raymond George; Third Defendant: Richard George; Fourth Defendant: Simon James George; Fifth Defendant: Robert Morris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim 1 of the Patent is invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step; claim 7 is valid. Mailer 1 infringes claim 1 but not claim 7. Mailers 2 and 3 do not infringe. Proceedings against Second to Fifth Defendants stayed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Added Matter, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step Added Matter Construction of Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Everseal Stationery Products Limited

Claimant

Document Management Solutions Limited

First Defendant

Raymond George

Second Defendant

Richard George

Third Defendant

Simon James George

Fourth Defendant

Robert Morris

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mailers 1, 2, or 3 infringe claims 1 and/or 7 of the Patent
  2. 2 Whether the Patent is invalid for lack of novelty, inventive step, or added matter
  3. 3 Whether damages should be restricted under section 62(3) of the Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of the Patent lacks novelty over the Viking Mailer, which was made available to the public before the priority date and possessed all relevant features including irreversible self-sealing under finger pressure. Claim 7 does not lack novelty over the Viking Mailer as the evidence did not inevitably establish the use of natural rubber latex adhesive stabilised with ammonia. Mailer 1 infringes claim 1 but not claim 7. Everseal failed to prove infringement for Mailers 2 and 3. The Patent is invalid for lack of inventive step and novelty in relation to claim 1.

Court Disposition

Claim 1 of the Patent is invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step; claim 7 is valid. Mailer 1 infringes claim 1 but not claim 7. Mailers 2 and 3 do not infringe. Proceedings against Second to Fifth Defendants stayed.

Orders

  • Claim 1 revoked for lack of novelty and inventive step
  • Claim 7 upheld as valid