Saint-Gobain PAM SA v Fusion Provida Ltd & Anor

Saint-Gobain PAM SA v Fusion Provida Ltd & Anor

The use of Zn/Al alloy in place of Zn for buried pipes was not obvious to the unimaginative skilled person, as the prior art (Johnsson) did not address the key mechanism of protection (white rust) or provide sufficient motivation to try the substitution for long-term buried pipe corrosion protection. The trial judge made no error of principle in finding the patent valid.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Saint-Gobain PAM SA; Appellant/defendant: Fusion Provida Limited; Appellant/defendant: Electrosteel Castings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Inventive Step, Patent Validity, Corrosion Protection, Buried Pipes
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Inventive Step Patent Validity Corrosion Protection Buried Pipes

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saint-Gobain PAM SA

Respondent/claimant

Fusion Provida Limited

Appellant/defendant

Electrosteel Castings Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No 0686246 is invalid for obviousness over the Johnsson paper

Ratio Decidendi

The use of Zn/Al alloy in place of Zn for buried pipes was not obvious to the unimaginative skilled person, as the prior art (Johnsson) did not address the key mechanism of protection (white rust) or provide sufficient motivation to try the substitution for long-term buried pipe corrosion protection. The trial judge made no error of principle in finding the patent valid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent’s costs of the appeal (including the respondent’s notice), subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.