LB Europe Ltd. (t/a Dupont Liquid Packaging Systems) v Smurfit Bag In Box SA & Anor [2007] EWHC 510 (Pat) (15 March 2007)

LB Europe Ltd. (t/a Dupont Liquid Packaging Systems) v Smurfit Bag In Box SA & Anor [2007] EWHC 510 (Pat) (15 March 2007)

The tearable taxing device feature of claim 1 is inventive and not obvious over the prior art; the engagement means feature was not shown to be obvious before the priority date. The Claimant's product does not infringe claim 1 because its engagement means and plug do not have the features required by the claim.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 510 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: LB Europe Limited (trading as DuPont Liquid Packaging Systems); First Defendant: Smurfit Bag in Box SA; Second Defendant: Vitop Moulding SRL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment After Trial on Infringement and Validity Issues
Outcome
Patent held valid but not infringed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Claim Construction, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Claim Construction Prior Art

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LB Europe Limited (trading as DuPont Liquid Packaging Systems)

Claimant

Smurfit Bag in Box SA

First Defendant

Vitop Moulding SRL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment After Trial on Infringement and Validity Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 432,070 is invalid for obviousness over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's product infringes claim 1 of the Patent

Ratio Decidendi

The tearable taxing device feature of claim 1 is inventive and not obvious over the prior art; the engagement means feature was not shown to be obvious before the priority date. The Claimant's product does not infringe claim 1 because its engagement means and plug do not have the features required by the claim.

Court Disposition

Patent held valid but not infringed