BASF AG v Smithkline Beecham Plc

BASF AG v Smithkline Beecham Plc

The phrase 'substantially free of bound propan-2-ol' in claim 3 must be given its ordinary meaning and does not extend to all organic solvents. Claim 3 is anticipated by prior art as the prior art disclosed PHA free of bound propan-2-ol. Claims 10(i) and 11 are not anticipated or obvious because the prior art did not provide clear and unmistakable directions or enablement to perform the claimed process without inventive effort.

Parties
Appellant: SmithKline Beecham Plc; Respondent: BASF AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Novelty, Obviousness, Sufficiency, Anticipation
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Construction Novelty Obviousness Sufficiency Anticipation

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham Plc

Appellant

BASF AG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patent) / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the phrase 'substantially free of bound propan-2-ol' in patent claims
  2. 2 Whether claim 3 and its dependent claims are anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Whether claims 10(i) and 11 are anticipated or obvious in light of prior art

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 all organic solvents. Claim 3 is anticipated by prior art as the prior art disclosed PHA free of bound propan-2-ol. Claims 10(i) and 11 are not anticipated or obvious because the prior art did not provide clear and unmistakable directions or enablement to perform the claimed process without inventive effort.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

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