Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery)

Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery)

Claim 1 of the patent is to be construed narrowly, requiring ribs projecting from a cylindrical shell with axial length, and does not cover the Rollastar star wheels. On this construction, claim 1 is valid and not obvious over the cited prior art. Mr Scott's machine with elastomeric rollers infringes directly. Supply of machines with steel rollers, designed and marketed for easy conversion to infringing configuration, constitutes contributory infringement under s.60(2) Patents Act 1977, as it is probable that some users will adapt them to infringe. The letters sent by Grimme were justified threats and not actionable.

Parties
Claimant/appellant/respondent: Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Derek Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent Infringement and Threats) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Grimme's appeal allowed; Mr Scott's appeal and respondent's notice dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Contributory Infringement, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Unjustified Threats
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Contributory Infringement Claim Construction Obviousness Unjustified Threats

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grimme Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co KG

Claimant/appellant/respondent

Derek Scott (t/a Scotts Potato Machinery)

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent Infringement and Threats) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of claim 1 of the patent
  2. 2 Obviousness of claim 1 over prior art (Rollastar, Dahlmann, Spatz, Pearson)
  3. 3 Whether Mr Scott's machine infringes the patent directly or indirectly under s.60(2) Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of the patent is to be construed narrowly, requiring ribs projecting from a cylindrical shell with axial length, and does not cover the Rollastar star wheels. On this construction, claim 1 is valid and not obvious over the cited prior art. Mr Scott's machine with elastomeric rollers infringes directly. Supply of machines with steel rollers, designed and marketed for easy conversion to infringing configuration, constitutes contributory infringement under s.60(2) Patents Act 1977, as it is probable that some users will adapt them to infringe. The letters sent by Grimme were justified threats and not actionable.

Court Disposition

Grimme's appeal allowed; Mr Scott's appeal and respondent's notice dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of validity of claim 1 of the patent
  • Declaration of direct infringement by Mr Scott's machine with elastomeric rollers