Quinn Packaging Ltd v Linpac Packaging Ltd & Anor

Quinn Packaging Ltd v Linpac Packaging Ltd & Anor

Both the Linpac and Faerch patents lack inventive step over the prior art (Ono) because the skilled person would have recognized from Ono the idea of placing a layer of adhesive on a peripheral flange to seal a PET container, and the other distinguishing features were either obvious or arbitrary. The proposed amendments to the Linpac patent do not cure the lack of inventive step and may extend protection or add matter.

Parties
Claimant: Quinn Packaging Limited; First Defendant: Linpac Packaging Limited; Second Defendant: R. Færch Plast A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Amendment Proceedings / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Both patents revoked for lack of inventive step; application to amend Linpac patent refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Inventive Step, Patent Amendment, Prior Art, Obviousness
Intellectual Property Law Patent Validity Inventive Step Patent Amendment Prior Art Obviousness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinn Packaging Limited

Claimant

Linpac Packaging Limited

First Defendant

R. Færch Plast A/S

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Amendment Proceedings / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Linpac and Faerch patents lack inventive step over the prior art (Ono)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments to the Linpac patent comply with statutory requirements (s.75 and s.76(3) of the Patents Act 1977)

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Linpac and Faerch patents lack inventive step over the prior art (Ono) because the skilled person would have recognized from Ono the idea of placing a layer of adhesive on a peripheral flange to seal a PET container, and the other distinguishing features were either obvious or arbitrary. The proposed amendments to the Linpac patent do not cure the lack of inventive step and may extend protection or add matter.

Court Disposition

Both patents revoked for lack of inventive step; application to amend Linpac patent refused.

Orders

  • Both the Linpac and Faerch patents are invalid and revoked for lack of inventive step.
  • Permission to amend the Linpac patent is refused.