Saertex France SAS v Hexcel Reinforcements UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 966 (IPEC)
This was a patent case about materials used in dry moulding processes to make composite products such as boat hulls. Saertex claimed that Hexcel had infringed its patent for a method of manufacture of fibre-based reinforcements to which a repositionable adhesive had been applied. Hexcel counterclaimed for a declaration that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over three pieces of prior art. In response, Saertex applied to amend the patent’s claims.
Following a 2-day trial in the IPEC at which the court heard expert evidence on both sides, HHJ Hacon held that the patent was invalid both as granted and as proposed to be amended. Had it been valid, the judge held that all four claims in issue would have been infringed.
The judgment makes clear that the skilled addressee of a patent is someone who has an interest in directly performing the invention as claimed, not someone who uses the product made according to the invention to make something else. It also contains helpful directions to patent litigants in the IPEC regarding expert evidence and product and process descriptions.
Chris Aikens appeared as sole counsel for Saertex.