Convatec Ltd & Anor v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors

Convatec Ltd & Anor v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent require a blend of gel forming modified cellulose fibres and at least one other type of gel forming fibre of different basic chemistry. Durafiber, containing only CES as the gel forming fibre, does not infringe. Even if ConvaTec's construction were correct, the claims would be invalid over Bahia due to lack of patentable distinction. Claim 3 is not obvious over Qin because the evidence did not establish that the skilled team would find it obvious to use a CMC/alginate felt as the wound contacting layer.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Ltd; Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Technologies Inc; Appellant/claimant: ConvaTec Inc; Respondent/defendant: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Smith & Nephew plc; Respondent/defendant: Speciality Fibres and Materials Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents/infringement) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal, Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Sufficiency
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Claim Construction Obviousness Sufficiency

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ConvaTec Ltd

Appellant/claimant

ConvaTec Technologies Inc

Appellant/claimant

ConvaTec Inc

Appellant/claimant

Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Smith & Nephew plc

Respondent/defendant

Speciality Fibres and Materials Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents/infringement) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of claims 1 and 3 of European Patent UK No 0 927 013
  2. 2 Whether Durafiber infringes claims 1 or 3
  3. 3 Whether claim 3 is invalid over Bahia

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 3 of the patent require a blend of gel forming modified cellulose fibres and at least one other type of gel forming fibre of different basic chemistry. Durafiber, containing only CES as the gel forming fibre, does not infringe. Even if ConvaTec's construction were correct, the claims would be invalid over Bahia due to lack of patentable distinction. Claim 3 is not obvious over Qin because the evidence did not establish that the skilled team would find it obvious to use a CMC/alginate felt as the wound contacting layer.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No infringement of claims 1 or 3 by Durafiber
  • Claims not invalid over Bahia or Qin on the facts as found