KCI Licensing Inc & Ors v Smith & Nephew Plc & Ors

KCI Licensing Inc & Ors v Smith & Nephew Plc & Ors

The GO system does not infringe claim 5 of '504 because it lacks means for detecting when the canister is full and for deactivating the pump, and does not have a guide for aligning the canister in a recess in the housing as required by the claim. Sales of GO canisters infringe claim 8 of '950 under section 60(2) because it was probable and obvious to the supplier that some medical personnel would add a clamp, thus putting the invention into effect. Claim 5 of '504 and claim 8 of '950 are not obvious over Argenta; claim 7 of '950 is obvious over Karakelle and therefore invalid.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal: KCI Licensing Inc; Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal: KCI Medical Resources; Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal: KCI Medical Limited; Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal: Smith & Nephew plc; Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal: Smith & Nephew Inc; Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal: Smith & Nephew Medical Limited; Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; some claims found infringed, others not; some claims found invalid for obviousness.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Claim Construction, Indirect Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Obviousness Claim Construction Indirect Infringement

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KCI Licensing Inc

Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal

KCI Medical Resources

Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal

KCI Medical Limited

Claimant/respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal

Smith & Nephew plc

Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal

Smith & Nephew Inc

Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal

Smith & Nephew Medical Limited

Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal

Smith & Nephew Healthcare Limited

Defendant/appellant/respondent to Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the GO system infringes claim 5 of EP (UK) patent 0 777 504 ('504)
  2. 2 Whether sales of GO canisters infringe claims 7 and 8 of EP (UK) patent 0 853 950 ('950) under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether claims 5 of '504, 7 and 8 of '950 are valid or obvious over prior art

Ratio Decidendi

The GO system does not infringe claim 5 of '504 because it lacks means for detecting when the canister is full and for deactivating the pump, and does not have a guide for aligning the canister in a recess in the housing as required by the claim. Sales of GO canisters infringe claim 8 of '950 under section 60(2) because it was probable and obvious to the supplier that some medical personnel would add a clamp, thus putting the invention into effect. Claim 5 of '504 and claim 8 of '950 are not obvious over Argenta; claim 7 of '950 is obvious over Karakelle and therefore invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; some claims found infringed, others not; some claims found invalid for obviousness.

Orders

  • S&N's appeal allowed: GO system does not infringe claim 5 of '504.
  • KCI's appeal allowed: S&N have infringed claim 8 of '950 by sales of GO canisters under section 60(2).