Burnden Group Plc v Ultraframe (UK) Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 867 (20 July 2005)

Burnden Group Plc v Ultraframe (UK) Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 867 (20 July 2005)

Claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty as the Scope/Sundale prior art device falls within the claim; construction of 'adapted to receive' is not limited to fixing means wholly within the channel; even if construed narrowly, claim would be obvious over prior art.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 867
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Burnden Group plc; Defendant/respondent: Ultraframe (UK) Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Christopher Richardson; Defendant/respondent: Northstar Systems Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Seaquest Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From Patents County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Patent Infringement
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Patent 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Burnden Group plc

Claimant/appellant

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Christopher Richardson

Defendant/respondent

Northstar Systems Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Seaquest Systems Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From Patents County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 If claim 7 is valid, whether it is infringed

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty as the Scope/Sundale prior art device falls within the claim; construction of 'adapted to receive' is not limited to fixing means wholly within the channel; even if construed narrowly, claim would be obvious over prior art.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent claim 7 held invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness
  • No argument heard on infringement due to invalidity