The claimant said that the defendant had infringed its patents regarding containers for the transport of liquids in bulk. The patent provided for a steel cage surrounding a large bottle. The defendant supplied refurbished or replacement bottles. The patent was attacked for obviousness.
Held: The claim failed. The court held, inter alia, as to whether the supply of alternate bottles was a’making’ within the Act, that Delta’s ‘activity of replacing the inner container of a Schutz IBC with a Werit bottle does not amount to making the patented product’. The ‘correct approach is to ask whether, when the part in question is removed, what is left embodies the whole of the inventive concept of the claim’, and ‘the inventive concept of [this claim] is wholly embodied in the Schutz cage’.
Floyd J
[2010] EWHC 660 (Pat), [2010] FSR 22, [2010] Bus LR 1244
Bailii
Patents Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK PatC 23-Jan-2009
Shutz sued Werit for patent infringement, Delta for patent infringement, trade mark infringement and passing off. Both actions concerned the same subject matter, namely intermediate bulk containers, otherwise known as IBCs, and the same patents. . .
Distinguished – United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd HL 21-Jul-2000
The patentees had two patents relating to parts of oil rigs, coming into play to clean drill bits of cuttings on retraction. The defendants sold re-conditioned frames for this process.
Held: Where the apparent exercise of a right of repair . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd CA 29-Mar-2011
. .
See Also – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another CA 29-Jul-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.408554