Buhler AG v FP Spomax SA

Buhler AG v FP Spomax SA

The patent is obvious in light of prior art and the properly identified skilled person in starch flour milling; the technical prejudice relied upon by Buhler does not exist in this context, and the inventive concept does not involve a non-obvious step. The amendment does not add new matter, but the patent is invalid for obviousness.

Parties
Claimant: Buhler AG; Defendant: FP Spomax SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
patent revoked
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Added Matter, Amendment of Patent, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Added Matter Amendment of Patent Prior Art

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buhler AG

Claimant

FP Spomax SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Buhler's patent is valid or obvious in light of prior art
  2. 2 Whether the patent amendment adds impermissible matter
  3. 3 Whether the inventive concept overcomes technical prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is obvious in light of prior art and the properly identified skilled person in starch flour milling; the technical prejudice relied upon by Buhler does not exist in this context, and the inventive concept does not involve a non-obvious step. The amendment does not add new matter, but the patent is invalid for obviousness.

Court Disposition

patent revoked

Orders

  • Patent No 0336939 revoked for obviousness
  • Order revoking apparatus claims 5-10 as unsustainable