Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH & Anor [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch) (15 January 2014)

Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH & Anor [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch) (15 January 2014)

The 1992 fax was confidential and did not constitute prior art; the ALS 1-4 machines did not render the patent obvious as the skilled person would not have been motivated to make a fully plastic piston for high-pressure rotary SBM machines; the patent as amended involved an inventive step and was valid; Seitz's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 14 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Eugen Seitz AG; Defendant: KHS Corpoplast GmbH; Defendant: Norgren AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim for revocation dismissed; declaration of non-infringement refused except for claim 3; patent held valid and infringed except for claim 3.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Infringement, Confidentiality of Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Infringement Confidentiality of Prior Art

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugen Seitz AG

Claimant

KHS Corpoplast GmbH

Defendant

Norgren AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Non Infringement Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent EP (UK) 1 271 029 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the alleged prior art was confidential and/or enabling
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's product infringes the patent as construed

Ratio Decidendi

The 1992 fax was confidential and did not constitute prior art; the ALS 1-4 machines did not render the patent obvious as the skilled person would not have been motivated to make a fully plastic piston for high-pressure rotary SBM machines; the patent as amended involved an inventive step and was valid; Seitz's proposed product infringed the patent except for claim 3, which was not infringed as it lacked a shaft cap.

Court Disposition

Claim for revocation dismissed; declaration of non-infringement refused except for claim 3; patent held valid and infringed except for claim 3.

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) 1 271 029 held valid and infringed by Seitz's proposed product except for claim 3.
  • Claim for revocation dismissed.