Kennametal Inc v Pramet Tools SRO & Anor

Kennametal Inc v Pramet Tools SRO & Anor

The Pramet inserts do not infringe claim 1 of the 643 Patent because they do not possess a substantially straight cutting edge region that is objectively and practically distinguishable from an arc, as required by the proper construction of the claim. Even if the Claimant's construction were accepted, claim 1 would be anticipated and obvious in light of Nagashima and Dijet prior art, and thus invalid.

Parties
Claimant: Kennametal Inc; First Defendant: Pramet Tools SRO; Second Defendant: Associated Production Tools Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; patent found invalid for lack of inventive step and anticipation if Claimant's construction accepted.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Inventive Step, Anticipation, Contributory Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Claim Construction Inventive Step Anticipation Contributory 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kennametal Inc

Claimant

Pramet Tools SRO

First Defendant

Associated Production Tools Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pramet inserts infringe claim 1 of EP (UK) No. 1,897,643 ('the 643 Patent')
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'substantially straight cutting edge region' and 'secondary conical clearance surface' in claim 1
  3. 3 Whether claim 1 is anticipated or obvious over Nagashima and Dijet prior art

Ratio Decidendi

The Pramet inserts do not infringe claim 1 of the 643 Patent because they do not possess a substantially straight cutting edge region that is objectively and practically distinguishable from an arc, as required by the proper construction of the claim. Even if the Claimant's construction were accepted, claim 1 would be anticipated and obvious in light of Nagashima and Dijet prior art, and thus invalid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; patent found invalid for lack of inventive step and anticipation if Claimant's construction accepted.

Orders

  • No finding of infringement against Defendants.
  • Had the patent been valid and infringed, injunctive relief would have been appropriate against both ZDEW and ZDCW inserts.