Zeno Corp (Formerly Known As Tyrell Inc) & Anor v BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH & Anor

Zeno Corp (Formerly Known As Tyrell Inc) & Anor v BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH & Anor

The Zeno device does not infringe the patent as it operates at temperatures and durations outside the claimed ranges and is not proven to have a beneficial effect on insect stings or bites; the patent is valid as it is not anticipated or obvious in light of prior art; Riemser's letter constituted unjustified threats under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Zeno Corporation; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Adept Scientific PLC; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Riemser Arzneimittel AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Counterclaim / Judgment
Outcome
Patent valid but not infringed; unjustified threats established against Riemser.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Unjustified Threats
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Unjustified Threats

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zeno Corporation

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Adept Scientific PLC

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

BSM-Bionic Solutions Management GmbH

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Riemser Arzneimittel AG

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Counterclaim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Zeno device infringes Riemser's patent EP (UK) No. 1 231 875
  2. 2 Whether the patent is valid
  3. 3 Whether the prior art anticipates the patent

Ratio Decidendi

The Zeno device does not infringe the patent as it operates at temperatures and durations outside the claimed ranges and is not proven to have a beneficial effect on insect stings or bites; the patent is valid as it is not anticipated or obvious in light of prior art; Riemser's letter constituted unjustified threats under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977.

Court Disposition

Patent valid but not infringed; unjustified threats established against Riemser.

Orders

  • Declaration of non-infringement
  • Certificate of contested validity