Glass & Ors v Freyssinet Ltd

Glass & Ors v Freyssinet Ltd

Claim 1 of UK Patent No. 2 426 008 is valid as it involves an inventive step over prior art and is not anticipated; claim 12 lacks inventive step over Fosroc 1 and Fosroc 2 as use of titanium connectors with sacrificial anodes was obvious to the skilled person; neither claim 1 nor claim 12 was infringed by Freyssinet as no offer to dispose or supply infringing products or methods was made in the UK; indirect infringement claim fails as there was no knowledge or obviousness that ultimate users would use the anode in a hybrid system.

Parties
Claimant: Gareth Kevin Glass; Claimant: Adrian Charles Roberts; Claimant: Nigel Davison; Defendant: Freyssinet Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim 1 valid but not infringed; claim 12 invalid for lack of inventive step; claim 12 would have been infringed if valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Claim Construction, Indirect Infringement
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step Claim Construction Indirect Infringement

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Kevin Glass

Claimant

Adrian Charles Roberts

Claimant

Nigel Davison

Claimant

Freyssinet Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UK Patent No. 2 426 008 is infringed by Freyssinet Limited
  2. 2 Whether claims 1 and 12 of the Patent lack novelty or inventive step over prior art
  3. 3 Proper construction of claims 1 and 12

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of UK Patent No. 2 426 008 is valid as it involves an inventive step over prior art and is not anticipated; claim 12 lacks inventive step over Fosroc 1 and Fosroc 2 as use of titanium connectors with sacrificial anodes was obvious to the skilled person; neither claim 1 nor claim 12 was infringed by Freyssinet as no offer to dispose or supply infringing products or methods was made in the UK; indirect infringement claim fails as there was no knowledge or obviousness that ultimate users would use the anode in a hybrid system.

Court Disposition

Claim 1 valid but not infringed; claim 12 invalid for lack of inventive step; claim 12 would have been infringed if valid.

Orders

  • Claim 1 upheld as valid; no injunction or damages as not infringed.
  • Claim 12 revoked for lack of inventive step.