Vernacare v. Environmental Pulp Products Limited, Patents County Court, London, UK, 19 July 2012, [2012] EWPCC 41
The Patents County Court held that Vernacare’s patent was valid and infringed by Environmental Pulp Products (EPP).
Vernacare’s patent, GB 2 446 793, relates to disposable washing bowls made of paper pulp which are used in hospitals and nursing homes. Vernacare alleged that the bowls sold by EPP infringed the patent. EPP had stopped selling their Version 1 bowl and had replaced this with Version 2. EPP had plans to replace Version 2 with Version 3 and denied that Version 2 or Version 3 infringed the patent. EPP counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art and common general knowledge. EPP also alleged the patent was invalid for added matter.
EPP admitted that the Version 1 bowl infringed the patent and His Honour Judge Birss QC held Version 2 infringed as well. Version 3 was held not to infringe as it did not have the claimed recesses.
HHJ Birss QC rejected the obviousness attack based on the Chaplin and Zincone prior art. HHJ Birss QC noted the attack based on common general knowledge alone was probably EPP’s strongest but it also failed.
HHJ Briss QC rejected the added matter attack and held that the disclosure of the patent was the same as the disclosure of the application. Although there was a small degree of broadening of language this was in respect of a broader claim and not a broader disclosure.
Read the judgment in English here.
Head note: Rob Fitt
The Patents County Court held that Vernacare’s patent was valid and infringed by Environmental Pulp Products (EPP).
Vernacare’s patent, GB 2 446 793, relates to disposable washing bowls made of paper pulp which are used in hospitals and nursing homes. Vernacare alleged that the bowls sold by EPP infringed the patent. EPP had stopped selling their Version 1 bowl and had replaced this with Version 2. EPP had plans to replace Version 2 with Version 3 and denied that Version 2 or Version 3 infringed the patent. EPP counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art and common general knowledge. EPP also alleged the patent was invalid for added matter.
EPP admitted that the Version 1 bowl infringed the patent and His Honour Judge Birss QC held Version 2 infringed as well. Version 3 was held not to infringe as it did not have the claimed recesses.
HHJ Birss QC rejected the obviousness attack based on the Chaplin and Zincone prior art. HHJ Birss QC noted the attack based on common general knowledge alone was probably EPP’s strongest but it also failed.
HHJ Briss QC rejected the added matter attack and held that the disclosure of the patent was the same as the disclosure of the application. Although there was a small degree of broadening of language this was in respect of a broader claim and not a broader disclosure.
Read the judgment in English here.
Head note: Rob Fitt
Recent Comments