Nicoventures Trading Limited v Philip Morris Products SA

Nicoventures Trading Limited v Philip Morris Products SA

The patents are not invalid for added matter as the claims do not disclose new information beyond the PCT, nor do they constitute an impermissible intermediate generalisation. The patents are not obvious over Pienemann because the skilled team would not obviously arrive at a system within claim 1 of the 323 patent based on Pienemann's teaching. The 'glo' devices do not infringe the 323 patent as they do not have two heating elements within the meaning of the claims, since their construction does not allow different parts of the substrate to be heated at different times.

Parties
Claimant/first Part 20 Defendant: Nicoventures Trading Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Philip Morris Products S.A.; Second Part 20 Defendant: British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for infringement dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Added Matter, Obviousness, Patent Infringement, Claim Interpretation
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Added Matter Obviousness Patent Infringement Claim Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicoventures Trading Limited

Claimant/first Part 20 Defendant

Philip Morris Products S.A.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patents (UK) 3 266 323 and 3 741 225 are invalid for added matter
  2. 2 Whether the patents are obvious over WO 00/28843 (Pienemann)
  3. 3 Whether the 'glo' tobacco heating devices infringe the 323 patent

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are not invalid for added matter as the claims do not disclose new information beyond the PCT, nor do they constitute an impermissible intermediate generalisation. The patents are not obvious over Pienemann because the skilled team would not obviously arrive at a system within claim 1 of the 323 patent based on Pienemann's teaching. The 'glo' devices do not infringe the 323 patent as they do not have two heating elements within the meaning of the claims, since their construction does not allow different parts of the substrate to be heated at different times.

Court Disposition

Claim for revocation dismissed; counterclaim for infringement dismissed

Orders

  • Patents upheld as valid
  • No infringement found in respect of 'glo' products