Patents - Quinn v Linpac















Jane Lambert

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Quinn Packaging Ltd v Linpac Packaging Ltd and another  [2019] EWHC 2119 (IPEC) (31 July 2019)

This was a claim by Quinn Packaging Ltd. for the revocation of British patent GB1100292.0 which is held by Linpac Packaging Ltd. on the ground of obviousness. Quinn also claimed the revocation on the same grounds of a patent that had been granted to Faerch A/S the title and number of which are not mentioned in the transcript. The item of prior art relied on by Quinn in both cases was Australian Patent No. 638092 Method for manufacturing containers provided with a peelable closure,

The issue in dispute was whether a skilled person who read the Australian patent before the priority dates of the Linpac and Faerch patents knowing of the need for a better sealing solution for plastic food trays would have recognized that the Australian patent provided the answer, namely the idea of creating a flange around the top periphery of the container and putting a suitable adhesive on it? The parties agreed that the skilled addressee was an engineer engaged in the design and manufacture of plastic packaging for products such as foodstuffs and that their common general knowledge included a relevant long-felt want among those in the plastics industry for a food container made entirely from  polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that could be sealed hygienically with lidding film 

The action came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 18 and 20 June and judgment was delivered on 31 July 2019.  The judge decided that both patents were invalid for want of an inventive step over the Australian patent. Almost no case law is recorded as having been cited either by counsel or the judge. The defendants argued that the Australian patent would not necessarily lead to Linpac or Faerch.  His Honour disagreed.

Anyone wishing to discuss this case or obviousness generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more