Vernacare Limited v Moulded Fibre Products Limited
Decision date: 15 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 2197 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Vernacare sued Moulded Fibre Products (MFP) for infringement of two patents covering single-use moulded paper pulp washbowls: GB 2446793 (shape/configuration) and GB 2439947 (composition). The court held the 793 Patent valid but not infringed because MFP's product has a continuous ridge rather than inward recesses required by the claim construction, while claims 1, 3, 9 and 12 of the 947 Patent were held valid and infringed by MFP. Obviousness attacks on the 947 Patent over Shimooka and Sugimoto were rejected. Secondary evidence of long-felt want and commercial success did not materially affect the obviousness analysis.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The decision identifies the skilled person as the moulded paper pulp product designer/operator (not an external specialist paper chemist) and applies a purposive construction that prevents claims from being extended to cover obvious variants within the skilled person’s common general knowledge (avoiding an "invalidity squeeze"). Applying that construction, the 793 Patent requires inward recesses with side walls and thus was not infringed, while the 947 Patent’s teaching of a detergent-resistant washbowl using a fluorocarbon in the pulp composition was not rendered obvious by the cited prior art.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment endorses the Formstein-style approach that equivalents which lack novelty or are obvious should not be used to expand claim scope to cover obvious variants, and it observes that wider-industry or specialist-chemist textbook disclosures do not automatically form part of the common general knowledge of a narrower skilled person in a sub-sector.