Patent decision

BL number

O/391/02

Concerning rights in

GB2329854

Hearing Officer

Mr P Hayward

Decision date

7 October 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Interfilta (UK) Ltd v Camfil AB

Provisions discussed

PA.1977 section 72

Keywords

Inventive step, Novelty, Revocation

Related Decisions

[2001] UKIntelP o45001, [2002] UKIntelP o39002

Summary

Camfil applied for revocation of the patent on the grounds that the invention disclosed in claim 1 was not novel because, prior to the priority date of the patent, Chase Machine and Engineering Inc had disclosed an anticipating filter bag in a newsletter distributed to their customers, demonstrated samples of the filter bag and distributed leaflets describing it at a trade show and demonstrated their prototype filtration bag making machine to the inventors of the patent.

At the hearing the defendants’ representative conceded that claims 1 and 3 were invalid in the light of the document and sample made available at the trade show. The Hearing Officer agreed that the concession was right and inevitable and held that these claims were also invalid in the light of the distribution of the newsletters and the demonstration of the prototype machine. In the latter case, it was conceded that the demonstration was an enabling disclosure and the Hearing Officer found that the demonstration was not subject to a bond of confidentiality. The Hearing Officer also held that claim 2 was invalid on the basis of expert evidence that the additional feature of this claim would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Costs were awarded to the claimants.