SafeStand Limited v Weston Homes PLC & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1098 (Pat)
Salts Healthcare Limited v Pelican Healthcare Limited
20 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1539 (Pat)
High Court
Two companies are fighting over a patent for a medical bag. A judge decided that both companies could use their test results as evidence, but one company didn't get all the extra information it wanted. The judge said they should cooperate more instead of fighting so much.
Key Facts
- •Salts Healthcare Limited (Salts) sued Pelican Healthcare Limited (Pelican) for infringement of UK patent GB2569212 for an ostomy appliance.
- •The case involved allegations of infringement of claims 5, 8, and 20 of the patent, based on normal construction and the doctrine of equivalents.
- •Both parties conducted experiments to assess bulging, sagging, and force distribution in ostomy bags.
- •Salts applied for permission to rely on its experiments and for further disclosure from Pelican.
- •Pelican applied for permission to rely on its experiments.
- •Disputes arose regarding the types of ostomy bags tested by Pelican and the adequacy of Pelican's amended Product Description (PPD).
Legal Principles
Doctrine of equivalents
Actavis test
Disclosure in patent cases
CPR PD 39A para 6.1, PD57AD, Consafe v Emtunga [1999] RPC 154
Re-opening interim decisions
Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518
Disclosure of known adverse documents
PD57AD paragraph 2
Outcomes
Salts' application to rely on its experiments granted.
Not resisted by Pelican.
Pelican's application to rely on its experiments granted (mostly).
Experiments on Pelican's product, analogues, and variations deemed appropriate. Experiments on Salts' product, prior art, and prior art modifications also allowed, subject to expert assessment.
Salts' application for further disclosure from Pelican largely denied.
Amended PPD deemed sufficient with further amendments ordered to remove 'purpose', 'not understood', and clarify certain ambiguities. Model D disclosure deemed disproportionate and unlikely to yield significantly more relevant information.
Pelican ordered to disclose the marketing presentation as a known adverse document.
The presentation contained claims regarding the functionality of the ModaVi product features inconsistent with the PPD. This was deemed relevant to Salts' ability to cross-examine witnesses.
Costs in the case.
Case management hearing; neither side achieved complete victory on the contested applications.