Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited
[2023] EWCA Civ 841
JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited & Anor
22 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 276
Court of Appeal
JCB's patent for a telehandler safety system was challenged. A judge said a similar system already existed. The appeals court disagreed, saying the existing system wasn't quite the same, therefore JCB's patent was valid.
Key Facts
- •JCB appealed the High Court's decision that one of its telehandler patents (EP 965) was invalid for lack of inventive step.
- •The appeal concerned whether claim 1 of EP 965 lacked inventive step in light of Japanese patent application No. 2000-329073 (Aichi).
- •Aichi described a control system for a cherrypicker (mobile platform), not a telehandler.
- •The dispute centered on whether it was obvious to adapt Aichi's control system to a telehandler, and whether the resulting system would fall under claim 1 of EP 965.
- •Aichi's control system had two elements: a moment limitation device (MLD) used when stationary, and a work range limitation device (WRLD) used when moving.
- •The central question was whether both the MLD and WRLD were 'longitudinal load moment control systems' (LLMCs) as defined in claim 1 of EP 965.
- •The lower court held that claim 1 was invalid, concluding that applying Aichi's system to a telehandler would fall within the claim because the MLD’s disabling when the machine is moving met the claim's criteria.
Legal Principles
Obviousness in patent law requires assessing whether it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to make the invention in question.
Common law of UK patent law
Claim construction in patent law is crucial in determining the scope of the patent protection.
Common law of UK patent law
A purposive construction of patent claims should be adopted, considering the specification.
Common law of UK patent law
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed JCB's appeal.
The Court found that the lower court incorrectly assumed that only the MLD in Aichi was an LLMC. The Court held that both the MLD and the WRLD in Aichi were LLMCs as defined in claim 1. However, the Court determined that switching between the MLD and WRLD did not meet the claim’s requirement of disabling the LLMC because this action did not allow for the operator to operate the actuator devices at will. Therefore claim 1 was not invalid for lacking inventive step.