Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Freres

Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd v Roquette Freres

The patent claim, when construed in context, includes both processes where the maltotriitol content is adjusted and where it is merely checked and found suitable, without adjustment. The judge's construction was correct, and the claim is anticipated by prior art.

Parties
Respondent: Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd; Appellant: Roquette Frères
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Anticipation, Obviousness, Crystallisation Process, Sugar Chemistry
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Construction Anticipation Obviousness Crystallisation Process Sugar Chemistry

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tate & Lyle Technology Ltd

Respondent

Roquette Frères

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of patent claim
  2. 2 Whether patent claim is anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Scope of 'use', 'modify', and 'control' in patent claim

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claim, when construed in context, includes both processes where the maltotriitol content is adjusted and where it is merely checked and found suitable, without adjustment. The judge's construction was correct, and the claim is anticipated by prior art.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The judge's construction of the patent is upheld.
  • No need to consider other issues or the Respondent's Notice.