BASF AG v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 872 (25 June 2003)

BASF AG v Smithkline Beecham Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 872 (25 June 2003)

The phrase 'substantially free of bound propan-2-ol' in claim 3 must be given its ordinary meaning and does not extend to other organic solvents. The prior art did not inevitably produce the claimed anhydrate substantially free of bound solvent, nor did it provide clear and unmistakable directions or enablement for the process claimed in 10(i) and 11. The judge's findings on obviousness and anticipation are upheld.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 872
Parties
Respondent: BASF AG; Appellant: SmithKline Beecham Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Novelty, Obviousness, Anticipation, Sufficiency
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Construction Novelty Obviousness Anticipation Sufficiency

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

Parties

BASF AG

Respondent

SmithKline Beecham Plc

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of patent claims, specifically 'substantially free of bound propan-2-ol'
  2. 2 Whether prior art anticipates or renders obvious the patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'substantially free of bound propan-2-ol' in claim 3 must be given its ordinary meaning and does not extend to other organic solvents. The prior art did not inevitably produce the claimed anhydrate substantially free of bound solvent, nor did it provide clear and unmistakable directions or enablement for the process claimed in 10(i) and 11. The judge's findings on obviousness and anticipation are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim 3 and its dependent claims held invalid.
  • Claims 10(i) and 11 held valid.