Fabio Perini SPA v LPC Group Plc & Ors [2009] EWHC 1929 (Pat) (31 July 2009)

Fabio Perini SPA v LPC Group Plc & Ors [2009] EWHC 1929 (Pat) (31 July 2009)

The Original and Proposed Rotoseal machines infringe claims 16 and 17 of patent 929 and claims 1 and 7 of patent 168. The Modified Rotoseal does not infringe. Neither JP 562 nor GB 445 anticipate or render obvious the claims. The patents are not invalid for insufficiency.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1929 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Fabio Perini SPA; Defendant: LPC Group PLC; Defendant: Paper Converting Machine Company Italia; Defendant: Paper Converting Machine Company Limited; Defendant: LPC (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims for infringement succeed in part; counterclaims for revocation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Insufficiency Construction of Claims

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fabio Perini SPA

Claimant

LPC Group PLC

Defendant

Paper Converting Machine Company Italia

Defendant

Paper Converting Machine Company Limited

Defendant

LPC (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants infringe claims 16 and 17 of European Patent (UK) 0481929 and claims 1 and 7 of European Patent (UK) 0699168
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for lack of novelty, obviousness, or insufficiency

Ratio Decidendi

The Original and Proposed Rotoseal machines infringe claims 16 and 17 of patent 929 and claims 1 and 7 of patent 168. The Modified Rotoseal does not infringe. Neither JP 562 nor GB 445 anticipate or render obvious the claims. The patents are not invalid for insufficiency.

Court Disposition

Claims for infringement succeed in part; counterclaims for revocation dismissed.

Orders

  • Original and Proposed Rotoseal infringe patents 929 and 168.
  • Modified Rotoseal does not infringe.