Wake Forest University Health Sciences & Ors v Smith & Nephew Plc & Anor

Wake Forest University Health Sciences & Ors v Smith & Nephew Plc & Anor

Claim 1 is anticipated by Bagautdinov, which discloses all elements of the apparatus. Claims 4, 16, and 19 are obvious because the use of adhesive film and cyclical vacuum means were common general knowledge and obvious modifications for the skilled person implementing Bagautdinov. The judge at first instance erred in his approach to obviousness, and the appellate court substituted its own evaluation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Wake Forest University Health Sciences; Claimant/respondent: KCI Medical Limited; Claimant/respondent: KCI Medical Resources; Defendant/appellant: Smith & Nephew PLC; Defendant/appellant: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal on obviousness of Claims 4, 16, and 19 allowed; appeal and cross-appeal on Claim 1 dismissed; other cross-appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Medical Devices
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Medical Devices

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wake Forest University Health Sciences

Claimant/respondent

KCI Medical Limited

Claimant/respondent

KCI Medical Resources

Claimant/respondent

Smith & Nephew PLC

Defendant/appellant

Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Claim 1 of the patent is anticipated by prior art (Bagautdinov)
  2. 2 Whether Claims 4, 16, and 19 are obvious in light of Bagautdinov

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 is anticipated by Bagautdinov, which discloses all elements of the apparatus. Claims 4, 16, and 19 are obvious because the use of adhesive film and cyclical vacuum means were common general knowledge and obvious modifications for the skilled person implementing Bagautdinov. The judge at first instance erred in his approach to obviousness, and the appellate court substituted its own evaluation.

Court Disposition

Appeal on obviousness of Claims 4, 16, and 19 allowed; appeal and cross-appeal on Claim 1 dismissed; other cross-appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims 4, 16, and 19 of the patent are invalid for obviousness.
  • Claim 1 is invalid for anticipation.