Select Healthcare (UK) Ltd v Cromptons Healthcare Ltd & Anor

Select Healthcare (UK) Ltd v Cromptons Healthcare Ltd & Anor

Poly-Glide does not infringe claim 1 of the Patent because it does not have a pimpled finish as required by the claim; the finish is the result of pin bonding and embossing, not pimpling. Further, claim 1 of the Patent is obvious over the prior art (Berge and Berge 2), as the use of a pimpled finish to reduce friction would have been obvious to the skilled person. The Patent is therefore invalid for obviousness.

Parties
Claimant: Select Healthcare (UK) Limited; First Defendant: Cromptons Healthcare Limited; Second Defendant: Proto Magic Innovations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patent revoked for obviousness; no infringement found.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Added Matter, Exclusive Licence
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Obviousness Sufficiency Added Matter Exclusive Licence

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

Select Healthcare (UK) Limited

Claimant

Cromptons Healthcare Limited

First Defendant

Proto Magic Innovations Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Poly-Glide product infringes claim 1 of UK Patent No. GB 2 433 244 B
  2. 2 Whether claim 1 of the Patent is obvious over prior art (Berge and Berge 2)
  3. 3 Whether the Patent is insufficient or contains added matter

Ratio Decidendi

Poly-Glide does not infringe claim 1 of the Patent because it does not have a pimpled finish as required by the claim; the finish is the result of pin bonding and embossing, not pimpling. Further, claim 1 of the Patent is obvious over the prior art (Berge and Berge 2), as the use of a pimpled finish to reduce friction would have been obvious to the skilled person. The Patent is therefore invalid for obviousness.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked for obviousness; no infringement found.