Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc v Procter & Gamble Ltd & Anor [2000] EWHC 74 (Pat) (21 July 2000)

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc v Procter & Gamble Ltd & Anor [2000] EWHC 74 (Pat) (21 July 2000)

The patent as amended is invalid for insufficiency because the PRD test, which defines the boundaries of the claim, is ambiguously described and cannot be reliably performed by the skilled person without undue experimentation or inventive input. Even if the PRD test were sufficiently described, the patent is also invalid for obviousness in light of the Meyer prior art, as the inventive concept is not inventive over what was already known. The Pampers nappies do not infringe because the relevant layers do not constitute a composite surge management means as claimed.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 74 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Kimberly-Clark; Defendant: Procter & Gamble (P&G)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Amendment Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked for insufficiency and obviousness; no infringement found.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Amendment, Sufficiency of Disclosure, Obviousness, Construction of Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Amendment Sufficiency of Disclosure Obviousness Construction of Claims

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberly-Clark

Claimant

Procter & Gamble (P&G)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Amendment Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent as amended is valid under statutory requirements, particularly sufficiency and obviousness
  2. 2 Whether the Pampers nappies infringe the amended patent claims
  3. 3 Whether the amendments to the patent should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The patent as amended is invalid for insufficiency because the PRD test, which defines the boundaries of the claim, is ambiguously described and cannot be reliably performed by the skilled person without undue experimentation or inventive input. Even if the PRD test were sufficiently described, the patent is also invalid for obviousness in light of the Meyer prior art, as the inventive concept is not inventive over what was already known. The Pampers nappies do not infringe because the relevant layers do not constitute a composite surge management means as claimed.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked for insufficiency and obviousness; no infringement found.

Orders

  • Patent EP (UK) 0297110 revoked.
  • No finding of infringement against P&G.