Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd & Anor v ResMed Ltd & Anor

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd & Anor v ResMed Ltd & Anor

The patent claims are anticipated and rendered obvious by prior art Geist and Lovell, as both disclose the relevant features under a purposive construction. The snap-fit and snap fingers features are present in the prior art, and any differences are routine workshop modifications. The patent is invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step. Had it been valid, the FPH masks would have infringed.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (England and Wales); Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (New Zealand); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: ResMed Limited (Australia); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: ResMed (UK) Limited (England and Wales)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patent EP (UK) 2 707 258 declared invalid for anticipation and obviousness.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Claim Construction, Infringement, Anticipation
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Claim Construction Infringement Anticipation

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (England and Wales)

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (New Zealand)

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

ResMed Limited (Australia)

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

ResMed (UK) Limited (England and Wales)

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP (UK) 2 707 258 patent is invalid for anticipation and obviousness over prior art Geist and Lovell
  2. 2 Whether the patent claims are infringed by Fisher & Paykel's Simplus and Eson masks
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'snap-fit', 'snap fingers', 'protrusions', and 'top end'/'bottom end' of shroud

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claims are anticipated and rendered obvious by prior art Geist and Lovell, as both disclose the relevant features under a purposive construction. The snap-fit and snap fingers features are present in the prior art, and any differences are routine workshop modifications. The patent is invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step. Had it been valid, the FPH masks would have infringed.

Court Disposition

Patent EP (UK) 2 707 258 declared invalid for anticipation and obviousness.

Orders

  • Patent revoked
  • No relief for infringement