Burnden Group Plc v Ultraframe (UK) Ltd & Anor

Burnden Group Plc v Ultraframe (UK) Ltd & Anor

Claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty because the Scope/Sundale prior art system discloses all the features of the claim as properly construed; any differences are obvious and do not involve an inventive step.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Burnden Group plc; Defendant/respondent: Ultraframe (UK) Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Christopher Richardson; Defendant/respondent: Northstar Systems Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Seaquest Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; patent held invalid
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Claim Construction, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Claim Construction Infringement

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

The Burnden Group plc

Claimant/appellant

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Christopher Richardson

Defendant/respondent

Northstar Systems Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Seaquest Systems Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty or obviousness
  2. 2 If the claim is valid, whether it is infringed

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 7 of UK Patent 2,259,926 is invalid for lack of novelty because the Scope/Sundale prior art system discloses all the features of the claim as properly construed; any differences are obvious and do not involve an inventive step.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; patent held invalid

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Patent claims 1 and 7 declared invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness