Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH & Anor

Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH & Anor

The patent was not anticipated because the 1992 Norgren fax was confidential and not enabling; the ALS 1-4 machines did not render the patent obvious as the skilled person would not have considered an all-plastic piston viable for rotary SBM machines. The Seitz product infringed the valid claims under purposive construction.

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 Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patent claims 1 (as amended) and 18 are valid and infringed; claim 3 is not infringed; claim 15 is not independently valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Infringement, Confidentiality, Declaratory Relief
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Infringement Confidentiality Declaratory Relief

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugen Seitz AG

Claimant

KHS Corpoplast GmbH

Defendant

Norgren AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent EP (UK) 1 271 029 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the Seitz product infringes the patent claims
  3. 3 Whether prior art and prior disclosure render the patent invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was not anticipated because the 1992 Norgren fax was confidential and not enabling; the ALS 1-4 machines did not render the patent obvious as the skilled person would not have considered an all-plastic piston viable for rotary SBM machines. The Seitz product infringed the valid claims under purposive construction.

Court Disposition

Patent claims 1 (as amended) and 18 are valid and infringed; claim 3 is not infringed; claim 15 is not independently valid.

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) 1 271 029 upheld as valid for claims 1 (as amended) and 18.
  • Declaration of infringement by Seitz product for claims 1 (as amended) and 18.