Quinn Packaging Ltd v Linpac Packaging Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 31 July 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] EWHC 2119 (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
Quinn sought revocation of two PET food-tray patents owned by Linpac and Faerch. The court held that the sole cited prior art, Ono, disclosed applying adhesive to a peripheral flange (a "bead" which when squashed forms a layer) and thus rendered the asserted claims, including specific thickness ranges and broad adhesive composition claims, obvious. Both patents were held to lack inventive step and Linpac's proposed amendments were refused because they would still lack inventive step.
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
A disclosure teaching application of an adhesive bead on a peripheral flange can render obvious claims to a sealed container in which that bead, when squashed by a lid, becomes a layer between flange and lid; similarly, a claimed numerical range that lacks demonstrated technical advantage (parametritis) does not confer inventive step.
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 suggests (obiter) that a skilled person can extract a practical inventive concept from an otherwise impractical disclosure ("gem in the dross"), and that where an amendment would literally embrace impractical embodiments, the skilled reader may for practical reasons read in limiting features — which may be curable by a simple amendment in appropriate cases.