Molnlycke Health Care AB v Wake Forest University & Anor [2009] EWHC 2204 (Pat) (28 August 2009)

Molnlycke Health Care AB v Wake Forest University & Anor [2009] EWHC 2204 (Pat) (28 August 2009)

The claims in issue (claims 4, 16, and proposed claim 22) of the patent are invalid for obviousness over both Zamierowski and Bagautdinov. The differences between the prior art and the claims, specifically the use of an open-cell polymer foam and a polymer sheet with adhesive, would have been obvious to the skilled person in light of the common general knowledge and the teachings of the prior art. The patent is not anticipated by Zamierowski or Bagautdinov, but is rendered obvious by them. The proposed amendments do not save the claims from invalidity.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2204 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Mölnlycke Health Care AB; Defendant: Wake Forest University; Defendant: Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patent claims 4, 16, and proposed claim 22 are invalid for obviousness. The patent is revoked to the extent of these claims. Proposed amendments are refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Sufficiency, Amendment of Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Sufficiency Amendment of Patents

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

Parties

Mölnlycke Health Care AB

Claimant

Wake Forest University

Defendant

Wake Forest University Health Sciences

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relevant claims of European Patent (UK) No. 0 620 720 B2 lack novelty over Zamierowski and Bagautdinov
  2. 2 Whether the claims are obvious over Zamierowski, Bagautdinov, Johnson, Jeter, and common general knowledge
  3. 3 Whether the patent is insufficient for lack of enablement regarding prevention of tissue overgrowth

Ratio Decidendi

The claims in issue (claims 4, 16, and proposed claim 22) of the patent are invalid for obviousness over both Zamierowski and Bagautdinov. The differences between the prior art and the claims, specifically the use of an open-cell polymer foam and a polymer sheet with adhesive, would have been obvious to the skilled person in light of the common general knowledge and the teachings of the prior art. The patent is not anticipated by Zamierowski or Bagautdinov, but is rendered obvious by them. The proposed amendments do not save the claims from invalidity.

Court Disposition

Patent claims 4, 16, and proposed claim 22 are invalid for obviousness. The patent is revoked to the extent of these claims. Proposed amendments are refused.

Orders

  • Revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 0 620 720 B2 as regards claims 4, 16, and proposed claim 22
  • Refusal of Wake Forest's conditional amendment applications