Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 588 (22 June 2007)

Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 588 (22 June 2007)

The patent is invalid for obviousness; the differences between the claimed invention and prior art (overlapping, spaced apart, and ready removability of discs) would have been obvious to the skilled person. There was no industry prejudice against overlapping CDs, and the patent did not contribute anything inventive. Even if valid, the defendants' product does not infringe as it does not meet the claim requirements for axial retention and regions at different levels.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 588
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Pozzoli SPA; Respondent/claimant: BDMO SA; Respondent/claimant: Moulage Industriel de Perseigne SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent held invalid for obviousness; no infringement found.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Infringement, Claim Construction, TRIPS Agreement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Infringement Claim Construction TRIPS Agreement

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pozzoli SPA

Appellant/claimant

BDMO SA

Respondent/claimant

Moulage Industriel de Perseigne SA

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pozzoli's patent EP (UK) 0 676 763 is valid
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' Double Push Tray product infringes the patent
  3. 3 Interpretation of TRIPS Article 32 regarding judicial review of patent revocation

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for obviousness; the differences between the claimed invention and prior art (overlapping, spaced apart, and ready removability of discs) would have been obvious to the skilled person. There was no industry prejudice against overlapping CDs, and the patent did not contribute anything inventive. Even if valid, the defendants' product does not infringe as it does not meet the claim requirements for axial retention and regions at different levels.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent held invalid for obviousness; no infringement found.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal formally granted.
  • Patent held invalid for obviousness.