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: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more

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