Alcon Eye Care UK v AMO Development, LLC [2022] EWHC 955 (Pat) (26 April 2022)

Alcon Eye Care UK v AMO Development, LLC [2022] EWHC 955 (Pat) (26 April 2022)

The patents were found invalid for lack of inventive step over the prior art (Freedman and Mühlhoff). The court held that the claimed inventions would have been obvious to the skilled team in light of the prior art and the common general knowledge at the priority date. The insufficiency allegations were not upheld as independent grounds for invalidity, but the patents were revoked for obviousness.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 955 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Alcon Eye Care UK Limited; Claimant: Alcon Inc.; Defendant: AMO Development, LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patents revoked for lack of inventive step; no infringement as patents invalid.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Inventive Step, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Ophthalmic Surgical Devices
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Inventive Step Obviousness Sufficiency Ophthalmic Surgical Devices

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcon Eye Care UK Limited

Claimant

Alcon Inc.

Claimant

AMO Development, LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP(UK) 1 835 861 B2 (EP861) and EP(UK) 2 548 528 B1 (EP528) are invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art (Freedman and Mühlhoff)
  2. 2 Whether the patents are insufficient
  3. 3 Whether Alcon's LenSx system infringes the patents if valid

Ratio Decidendi

The patents were found invalid for lack of inventive step over the prior art (Freedman and Mühlhoff). The court held that the claimed inventions would have been obvious to the skilled team in light of the prior art and the common general knowledge at the priority date. The insufficiency allegations were not upheld as independent grounds for invalidity, but the patents were revoked for obviousness.

Court Disposition

Patents revoked for lack of inventive step; no infringement as patents invalid.

Orders

  • EP(UK) 1 835 861 B2 (EP861) and EP(UK) 2 548 528 B1 (EP528) revoked
  • Counterclaim for infringement dismissed