Tehrani v Hamilton & ors [2021] EWHC 3457 (IPEC)
This dispute concerned a patent for mechanical ventilation. Professor Tehrani was the registered proprietor of EP UK Patent No. 2,424,721 (“the Patent”), titled “Method and apparatus for controlling a ventilator”. A mechanical ventilator, also known as a respirator, is a machine which assists a patient with breathing by delivering oxygen and removing carbon dioxide.
The Defendants (collectively “Hamilton”) make and sell ventilators. A number of Hamilton’s ventilators incorporate what is called the “Intellivent-ASV System”. Professor Tehrani alleged that the Intellivent-ASV System infringed the Patent.
Hamilton denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity on the basis of lack of novelty and obviousness, relying upon four documentary prior art citations – (1) Anderson J.R. and East T.D, A closed-loop controller for mechanical ventilation of patients with ARDS, Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 2002, vol. 38m 289-294 (“Anderson”); Waisel et al., PEFIOS: An Expert Closed-Loop Oxygenation Algorithm, Medinfo ’95: Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress on Medical Informatics, Vancouver Trade & Convention Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, 23-27 July 1995 (“Waisel”); (3) US Patent No. 4 986 268 (“US 268”); and (4) Tehrani F, Dual Control System for Ventilatory Treatment of Premature Infants, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems, Analytics and Synthesis, Vol. 8, Concepts and Applications of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 31 July – 4 August 1999 (“the Tehrani Paper”). Hamilton also ran insufficiency arguments as squeezes.
Hacon HHJ heard the trial remotely between 6-7 July 2021. The Judge held the Patent was invalid because the claim 1 was anticipated by Waisel and claim 45 was obvious over Waisel. The Patent would have been infringed by the Intellivent-ASV System had it been valid.
Mitchell Beebe appeared as sole counsel for Professor Tehrani, instructed by Briffa Legal Ltd