AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd

AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd

The application as filed disclosed, clearly and unambiguously, a class of asymmetric peripheral stiffening bands (PSBs) as claimed in the granted patent. The claim's generalisation did not disclose any new technical information not present in the application. Therefore, the patent did not contain added matter and was not invalid on that ground. The obviousness attack based on Baba failed because Baba did not disclose PSBs as claimed, and the skilled person would not have recognised Baba's features as PSBs within the meaning of the patent.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: AP Racing Limited; Defendant/respondent: Alcon Components Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From Patents County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order revoking the patent set aside.
Legal Topics
Patents, Added Matter, Obviousness, Patent Amendment, Patent Revocation
Intellectual Property Law Patents Added Matter Obviousness Patent Amendment Patent Revocation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP Racing Limited

Claimant/appellant

Alcon Components Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From Patents County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of the granted patent disclosed added matter beyond the application as filed
  2. 2 Whether the patent was invalid for added matter
  3. 3 Whether the patent was obvious over prior art (Baba)

Ratio Decidendi

The application as filed disclosed, clearly and unambiguously, a class of asymmetric peripheral stiffening bands (PSBs) as claimed in the granted patent. The claim's generalisation did not disclose any new technical information not present in the application. Therefore, the patent did not contain added matter and was not invalid on that ground. The obviousness attack based on Baba failed because Baba did not disclose PSBs as claimed, and the skilled person would not have recognised Baba's features as PSBs within the meaning of the patent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order revoking the patent set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The order revoking UK Patent No 2 451 690 is set aside.