![IP-2024-000024 - [2025] EWHC 492 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png){kind=logo}
Infringement
Infringement
The product alleged to infringe, the Seplou Sheath, is a kit of parts. Well Lead relies on s.60(2) of the Patent Act 1977 but reliance on that subsection of itself raised no issue. By the time of the trial the dispute on infringement came down to a single point on normal construction, namely whether the sheath of CJ Medical’s products have a diameter which is the same as the diameter of the lumen of the side arm. If the diameters are not the same, Well Lead had a further argument on equivalence.
The Seplou Sheath comes in five different sizes. This table produced by Well Lead was accepted to be factually accurate:
Product Size | Diameter of sheath lumen | Diameter of side arm lumen (mm) | Differences (%) |
10 | 3.33 | 4.57 | 37.2 |
11 | 3.67 | 4.69 | 27.8 |
12 | 4.00 | 4.79 | 19.8 |
13 | 4.33 | 4.68 | 8.1 |
14 | 4.67 | 4.68 | 0.2 |
- 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