Daesang Corporation & Anor v Ajinomoto Co Inc

Daesang Corporation & Anor v Ajinomoto Co Inc

JP '267 does not contain clear and unmistakable directions to carry out the patented process on an industrial scale, nor does it teach or make obvious the use of static crystallisation as claimed. The patent specification is sufficient, and the claims are valid.

Parties
Claimant: Daesang Corporation; Claimant: Daesang Europe B.V.; Defendant: Ajinomoto Co. Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claim dismissed; patent held valid
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Anticipation, Obviousness, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Anticipation Obviousness Insufficiency

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daesang Corporation

Claimant

Daesang Europe B.V.

Claimant

Ajinomoto Co. Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent EP 0 091 787 is invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or insufficiency
  2. 2 Whether JP '267 anticipates or renders obvious the patent claims
  3. 3 Whether the patent specification is insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

JP '267 does not contain clear and unmistakable directions to carry out the patented process on an industrial scale, nor does it teach or make obvious the use of static crystallisation as claimed. The patent specification is sufficient, and the claims are valid.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed; patent held valid