Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 1398 (Pat) (21 June 2006)

Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA & Ors [2006] EWHC 1398 (Pat) (21 June 2006)

The Double Push Tray does not infringe claim 1 of the patent because it does not have regions at different levels and does not axially retain discs as required by the claim. The patent is invalid for obviousness because the inventive concept—overlapping, spaced, axially offset discs—would have been obvious to a skilled person in light of common general knowledge and prior art. There was no technical prejudice in the industry against overlapping discs that was overcome by the patent.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1398 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Pozzoli S. P. A; Defendant: BDMO S. A; Defendant: Moulage Industriel de Perseigne S. A; Defendant: CMCS Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; patent held invalid for obviousness and not infringed.
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Prior Art, Doctrine of Equivalents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Patent Infringement Obviousness Prior Art Doctrine of Equivalents

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pozzoli S. P. A

Claimant

BDMO S. A

Defendant

Moulage Industriel de Perseigne S. A

Defendant

CMCS Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of claim 1 of EP (UK) 0 676 763
  2. 2 Whether the Double Push Tray infringes the patent
  3. 3 Whether the patent is invalid for obviousness

Ratio Decidendi

The Double Push Tray does not infringe claim 1 of the patent because it does not have regions at different levels and does not axially retain discs as required by the claim. The patent is invalid for obviousness because the inventive concept—overlapping, spaced, axially offset discs—would have been obvious to a skilled person in light of common general knowledge and prior art. There was no technical prejudice in the industry against overlapping discs that was overcome by the patent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; patent held invalid for obviousness and not infringed.

Orders

  • Claim for infringement dismissed
  • Patent declared invalid for obviousness