Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA & Anor

Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA & Anor

Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Siu and Herbst; claim 8 is obvious over Herbst; none of the claims are obvious over Vogt. The Halo infringes claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 13 if valid, but not claim 8. Proper construction of claim terms supports these findings.

Parties
Claimant: Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: SEB SA; Part 20 Claimant: Groupe SEB UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims 1, 3, and 8 of the patent are invalid for obviousness; claims 10, 11, and 13 are valid and infringed by Jarden's Halo fryer.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Construction of Claims

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Limited

Claimant

SEB SA

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Groupe SEB UK Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 2 085 003 is valid or obvious over prior art (Vogt, Herbst, Siu)
  2. 2 Whether Jarden's Halo fryer infringes the patent claims
  3. 3 Proper construction of claim terms including 'dry fryer', 'substantially sealed', and 'mounted on the main body'

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Siu and Herbst; claim 8 is obvious over Herbst; none of the claims are obvious over Vogt. The Halo infringes claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 13 if valid, but not claim 8. Proper construction of claim terms supports these findings.

Court Disposition

Claims 1, 3, and 8 of the patent are invalid for obviousness; claims 10, 11, and 13 are valid and infringed by Jarden's Halo fryer.

Orders

  • Patent claims 1, 3, and 8 revoked for obviousness.
  • Declaration of infringement of claims 10, 11, and 13 by Jarden's Halo fryer.