Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor

Pozzoli Spa v BDMO SA & Anor

The patent is invalid for obviousness because, given the common general knowledge and prior art, it was obvious to overlap and space apart discs to reduce container height. There was no technical prejudice or long-felt want preventing this. The alleged infringement does not fall within the claims as properly construed, as 'axially retained' means retention via the centre (rosette), and 'region' requires physical regions at different heights, not merely virtual spaces.

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
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Infringement, Claim Construction, International Treaties (trips)
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Infringement Claim Construction International Treaties (trips)

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 5 Authorities cited 9 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

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent EP (UK) 0 676 763 is invalid for obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the defendants’ Double Push Tray infringes the patent
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'axially retained' and 'region' in the patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for obviousness because, given the common general knowledge and prior art, it was obvious to overlap and space apart discs to reduce container height. There was no technical prejudice or long-felt want preventing this. The alleged infringement does not fall within the claims as properly construed, as 'axially retained' means retention via the centre (rosette), and 'region' requires physical regions at different heights, not merely virtual spaces.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on conventional basis
  • Patent held invalid for obviousness