Panduit Corporation v Band-It Company Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 465 (25th April, 2002)

Panduit Corporation v Band-It Company Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 465 (25th April, 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by applying hindsight and failing to properly adopt the perspective of the skilled person, particularly regarding the reasons for coating cable ties. In the absence of relevant primary evidence, Band-It did not discharge the burden of proving obviousness. The invention was not obvious and the patent was valid.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 465
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Panduit Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Band-It Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Patents County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Inventive Step, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Inventive Step 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panduit Corporation

Claimant/appellant

Band-It Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Patents County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the invention claimed in patent No. 2260158 was obvious and therefore invalid
  2. 2 Whether the Band-It cable ties infringed the patent if valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by applying hindsight and failing to properly adopt the perspective of the skilled person, particularly regarding the reasons for coating cable ties. In the absence of relevant primary evidence, Band-It did not discharge the burden of proving obviousness. The invention was not obvious and the patent was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Patent held valid; attack on validity fails
  • Costs awarded to appellant (Panduit) here and below