The Janger Ltd v Tesco Plc
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 3450 (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
Janger sued Tesco for infringement of GB 2 552 562 B (claims 1, 4 and 5) relating to a garment hanger. The court found claim 1 anticipated by the prior Jones design and claims 4 and 5 obvious over Jones, and also held that a two-image PDF shown to M&S on 1 October 2013 (the Globalhanger disclosure) was shown under circumstances importing confidence. The judge therefore concluded the challenged claims were invalid on those grounds.
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: medium
From the findings in this judgment, a prior design that discloses a product capable of hanging garments and an opening engaging a rail can anticipate a broadly drafted patent claim to a "garment hanger" even if the prior product was described differently and not optimised for retail use. Further, where a feature (for example a relatively narrower opening or a tail flange) merely implements a known trade-off between security and ease of loading and lies within the common general knowledge of the skilled addressee, adopting or slightly narrowing that feature is an obvious variant rendering the claim obvious.
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 commented that the term "garment hanger" need not be confined to conventional arms/shoulders and can cover varied forms including accessories or bags, so subjective intention need not be imported into its meaning. It also observed that the absence of a formal NDA does not automatically preclude an obligation of confidence; commercial reality at a supplier–purchaser meeting can establish confidentiality.