![IP-2024-000024 - [2025] EWHC 492 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
Claim 1 of the Patent is invalid for lack of inventive step. Claim 3 is valid. Claim 3 is infringed by sales of the Seplou Sheath in size 14 but not any of the other sizes.
- Heading
- Judge Hacon
- The skilled person
- The expert witnesses
- Technical Background
- The Patent
- The claims
- Construction
- Claim 3 – a flexible, deflectable tip
- The prior art
- Soble and Russo
- The law on inventive step
- Inventive step over Soble
- Differences between claim 1 and Soble
- Sleeve v sheath
- No obturator in Soble
- A clamp in Soble instead of a flexible cap
- Conclusion on Soble and inventive step
- Wan
- Piercing stylus, obturator and trocar
- Inventive step of claim 1 over Wan
- Inventive step of claim 3 over Wan
- Added matter
- Method of treatment or diagnosis
- Infringement
- Normal construction
- Sizes 10-13 as equivalents
- Conclusions