Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd & Anor

Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd & Anor

The inventive concept of the patents resides wholly in the cage; replacing the bottle does not amount to 'making' the patented product. The Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does not infringe the patents because the essential inventive features are not embodied in the bottle, and the acts of Delta do not constitute manufacture of the patented product. The patents are valid, but not infringed. The section 44 defence fails as the contractual restriction relates to the patented product in kit form, not to something other than the patented product.

Parties
Claimant: Schütz (U.K.) Limited; First Defendant: Werit UK Limited; Second Defendant: Protechna SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Patents 307 and 967 are valid but not infringed; section 44 defence fails.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Inventive Step, Insufficiency, Added Matter, Repair Vs. Making, Exhaustion of Rights, Section 44 Defence
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Inventive Step Insufficiency Added Matter Repair Vs. Making +2 more

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schütz (U.K.) Limited

Claimant

Werit UK Limited

First Defendant

Protechna SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the patents (307 and 967) valid?
  2. 2 Do Schütz’s IBCs cross-bottled with Werit bottles fall within the scope of the patents?
  3. 3 Does cross-bottling amount to 'making' the patented product?

Ratio Decidendi

The inventive concept of the patents resides wholly in the cage; replacing the bottle does not amount to 'making' the patented product. The Schütz cage with a Werit bottle does not infringe the patents because the essential inventive features are not embodied in the bottle, and the acts of Delta do not constitute manufacture of the patented product. The patents are valid, but not infringed. The section 44 defence fails as the contractual restriction relates to the patented product in kit form, not to something other than the patented product.

Court Disposition

Patents 307 and 967 are valid but not infringed; section 44 defence fails.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as to infringement of patents 307 and 967.
  • Declaration that patents 307 and 967 are valid.