The claimant attacked the patents for want of novelty and inventiveness, added matter and insufficiency. The judge, Mr. Justice Arnold, found that one of the patents had been anticipated but that the others were valid (or, in the case of one patent) would be valid. He also found that none of the patents had been infringed.
The judge applied the usual tests.
- the Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd  UKHL 46,  RPC 9 test for determining whether there had been infringement;
- the Synthon BVv SmithKline Beecham pic  UKHL 59,  RPC 10 and General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd  RPC 4 test for novelty;
- the Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd  RPC 59 and Pozzoli v BDMO SA  EWCA Civ 588,  FSR 37 test for obviousness; and
- Bonzel v Intervention Ltd (No 3)  RPC 553 and Vector Corp v Glatt Air Techniques Ltd  EWCA Civ 805,  RPC 10 for added matter.