Ultraframe (UK) Ltd. v Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd.& Anor

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd. v Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd.& Anor

The majority held that the patent was not infringed because 'interengage' in claim 1 required more than mere abutment of lower coupling members; it required some form of interconnection or restraint. The patent was valid over prior art. UDR subsisted in the panels and assemblies and was infringed by the Pinnacle 500. An undertaking under s.239 CPDA 1988 could be given after expiry of design right, limiting damages.

Parties
Appellant: Ultraframe (UK) Limited; 1st Respondent: Eurocell Building Plastics Limited; 2nd Respondent: Eurocell Profiles Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part, cross-appeal dismissed, findings of UDR infringement and validity upheld, s.239 undertaking accepted.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Unregistered Design Right (udr), Interpretation of Patent Claims, Damages for Infringement, Licence of Right, Statutory Construction
Intellectual Property Patents Design Rights Patent Infringement Patent Validity Unregistered Design Right (udr) Interpretation of Patent Claims Damages for Infringement +2 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultraframe (UK) Limited

Appellant

Eurocell Building Plastics Limited

1st Respondent

Eurocell Profiles Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pinnacle 500 product infringes Ultraframe's patent No. 2,300,012
  2. 2 Whether the patent is valid over prior art
  3. 3 Whether there is subsistence and infringement of unregistered design right (UDR) in panels and assemblies

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the patent was not infringed because 'interengage' in claim 1 required more than mere abutment of lower coupling members; it required some form of interconnection or restraint. The patent was valid over prior art. UDR subsisted in the panels and assemblies and was infringed by the Pinnacle 500. An undertaking under s.239 CPDA 1988 could be given after expiry of design right, limiting damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part, cross-appeal dismissed, findings of UDR infringement and validity upheld, s.239 undertaking accepted.

Orders

  • Patent infringement claim dismissed
  • Patent held valid