JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (04 July 2022)

JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (04 July 2022)

The patents EP 065 and EP 965 lack inventive step over the cited prior art (Kruger, Tadano, Aichi I). The technical concepts disclosed in the prior art are applicable to telehandlers, and automating manual operations is not inventive. The threshold speed setting in EP 965 is trivial. The absence of prior use does not negate obviousness due to lack of evidence of industry consideration. Claims are invalid for obviousness and are revoked.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: J. C. Bamford Excavators Limited; Defendant: Manitou UK Limited; Defendant: Manitou BF S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Patents EP 065 and EP 965 are invalid for lack of inventive step and revoked. Claims for infringement dismissed.
Legal Topics
Inventive Step, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Long Felt Want, Prior Art, Patent Revocation
Intellectual Property Patents Inventive Step Patent Infringement Obviousness Long Felt Want Prior Art Patent Revocation

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. C. Bamford Excavators Limited

Claimant

Manitou UK Limited

Defendant

Manitou BF S. A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP 065, EP 965, and EP 382 patents are infringed by Manitou telehandlers
  2. 2 Whether the patents lack inventive step in light of prior art
  3. 3 Whether the patents should be revoked

Ratio Decidendi

The patents EP 065 and EP 965 lack inventive step over the cited prior art (Kruger, Tadano, Aichi I). The technical concepts disclosed in the prior art are applicable to telehandlers, and automating manual operations is not inventive. The threshold speed setting in EP 965 is trivial. The absence of prior use does not negate obviousness due to lack of evidence of industry consideration. Claims are invalid for obviousness and are revoked.

Court Disposition

Patents EP 065 and EP 965 are invalid for lack of inventive step and revoked. Claims for infringement dismissed.

Orders

  • Revocation of EP 065 and EP 965
  • Dismissal of infringement claims against Manitou