Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1638 (14 December 2012)

Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1638 (14 December 2012)

The Court held that it would not have been obvious to the skilled person to apply Kreidl's method to gel-forming fibres such as Aquacel, given the uncertainty about the mechanism of light stability (adsorption vs. physical shielding) and the lack of common general knowledge supporting Kreidl's theory. The patent as amended was valid and involved an inventive step over Kreidl.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1638
Parties
Appellant: Smith & Nephew plc; Respondent: Convatec Technologies Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Inventive Step, Patent Amendment, Sufficiency of Disclosure
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Obviousness Inventive Step Patent Amendment Sufficiency of Disclosure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith & Nephew plc

Appellant

Convatec Technologies Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended patent was obvious in light of prior art (Kreidl)
  2. 2 Whether the amendment introduced additional matter
  3. 3 Whether the patent as amended was sufficiently disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it would not have been obvious to the skilled person to apply Kreidl's method to gel-forming fibres such as Aquacel, given the uncertainty about the mechanism of light stability (adsorption vs. physical shielding) and the lack of common general knowledge supporting Kreidl's theory. The patent as amended was valid and involved an inventive step over Kreidl.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent as amended held valid
  • No order for revocation