Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc v Molecular Instruments, Inc [2024] EWHC 898 (Pat) (23 April 2024)

Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc v Molecular Instruments, Inc [2024] EWHC 898 (Pat) (23 April 2024)

The patents are invalid for obviousness over the combination of Collins and Kern; the skilled person, with the common general knowledge, would have found it obvious to use bDNA with cruciform probes in situ. The defendant's products do not infringe valid claims, and even if they did, MI would not be liable as a joint tortfeasor under the facts established.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 898 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc.; Defendant: Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patents held invalid for obviousness; claim for infringement dismissed; counterclaim for revocation succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Joint Tortfeasorship, Common General Knowledge, Claim Construction
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Joint Tortfeasorship Common General Knowledge +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc.

Claimant

Molecular Instruments, Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant infringed European Patents (UK) No. 1 910 572 B1 and No. 2 500 439 B1
  2. 2 Whether the patents are invalid for anticipation or obviousness
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable as a joint tortfeasor for acts of its UK customers

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are invalid for obviousness over the combination of Collins and Kern; the skilled person, with the common general knowledge, would have found it obvious to use bDNA with cruciform probes in situ. The defendant's products do not infringe valid claims, and even if they did, MI would not be liable as a joint tortfeasor under the facts established.

Court Disposition

Patents held invalid for obviousness; claim for infringement dismissed; counterclaim for revocation succeeds.

Orders

  • Revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 910 572 B1 and No. 2 500 439 B1
  • Claim for infringement dismissed