E Mishan & Sons, Inc (t/a Emson) v Hozelock Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 991 (Pat) (17 April 2019)

E Mishan & Sons, Inc (t/a Emson) v Hozelock Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 991 (Pat) (17 April 2019)

The court found that the skilled person is typically a hose designer with exposure to both garden and technical hoses. The Superhoze 1 infringes claim 1 of EP 585, as the claim does not require the tubes to be unattached except at the couplers. The Superhoze 2 does not infringe claims requiring 'non-elastic' material due to its nylon warp. The patents are not invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art, as the inventive concept was not obvious to the skilled person at the priority date. Commercial success supports non-obviousness.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 991 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc T/A Emson; 1st Defendant: Hozelock Limited; 2nd Defendant: Blue Gentian LLC; 3rd Defendant: Telebrands Corp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in part; Superhoze 1 found to infringe EP 585; patents upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Commercial Success, Priority, Interpretation of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Commercial Success Priority Interpretation of Claims

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. Mishan & Sons, Inc T/A Emson

Claimant

Hozelock Limited

1st Defendant

Blue Gentian LLC

2nd Defendant

Telebrands Corp

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Superhoze 1 and Superhoze 2 infringe GB 276 and EP 585 patents
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness)
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'unattached' and 'non-elastic' in patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the skilled person is typically a hose designer with exposure to both garden and technical hoses. The Superhoze 1 infringes claim 1 of EP 585, as the claim does not require the tubes to be unattached except at the couplers. The Superhoze 2 does not infringe claims requiring 'non-elastic' material due to its nylon warp. The patents are not invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art, as the inventive concept was not obvious to the skilled person at the priority date. Commercial success supports non-obviousness.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in part; Superhoze 1 found to infringe EP 585; patents upheld as valid.

Orders

  • Declaration of infringement of EP 585 by Superhoze 1
  • Patents GB 276 and EP 585 held valid