Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
By Peter Leung
Sept. 6 — The High Court of Justice of England and Wales' Patents Court Sept. 2 threw out an Imperial Tobacco subsidiary's e-cigarette patent for being obvious and lacking novelty ( Nicocigs Ltd. v. Fontem Holdings 1 BV  EWHC 2161 (Pat) (UK)).
The case highlights the high level of competition in the growing e-cigarette market (134 PTD, 7/13/16).
Philip Morris International subsidiary Nicocigs Ltd. sued to revoke Fontem 1 Holdings BV's patent claiming improved aerosol effects and atomizing efficiency or, alternately, for a declaration that its e-cigarettes didn't infringe the patent. The court ruled that the patent claims were anticipated by another Fontem patent and were obvious in light of a patent filed in the U.S.
The challenged Fontem patent, EP (UK) 2 022 349 , is filed by Han Li, sometimes romanized as Hon Lik, the Chinese inventor of the e-cigarette. Fontem acquired Han's company Dragonite International Ltd. in 2013, along with the company's patents.
The device has a battery and atomizer assembly that is connected to a liquid storage unit with a porous component. The liquid nicotine in the storage unit is vaporized by the porous component, and the vapor condenses in the shell of the device into an aerosol, which is inhaled by the user.
On the issue of novelty, the court agreed with Nicocigs that patent EP 2 022 350 A1 anticipated the challenged `349 patent's invention by disclosing several of the claims. Interestingly, the `350 patent was one that Han applied for and claims a priority date from the same document as the `349 patent.
Differences, such as whether there is a separate support device for the porous component, don't make a technical difference and don't save the ‘349 patent from lacking novelty, the court said.
The ‘350 must predate the ‘349 in order to anticipate it. Fontem attempted to argue that the two patents had the same priority date since they stem from the same Chinese patent, but the court rejected that argument. A person skilled in the art, looking at the Chinese patent, would come up with the device in the challenged patent, meaning the challenged patent can't trace its priority back to the Chinese patent, the court said.
The court also found that some claims in the challenged patent lacked an inventive step, a concept U.S. patent attorneys refer to as obviousness. Nicocigs argued that the challenged patent is obvious in light of several pieces of prior art, one of which is European Patent No. EP 0 893 071 describing an air flavor generating device. The court said that, despite a dispute over whether the liquid storage chamber in that patent was refillable or exchangeable, the implementation of a detachable end chamber would be obvious.
John Baldwin, sitting as a deputy judge, decided the case. Iain Purvis, Ben Longstaff and Powell Gilbert LLP represented Nicocigs. Andrew Lykiardopoulos, Tim Austen and Simmons & Simmons LLP represented Fonthem.
To contact the reporter on this story: Peter Leung in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text available at http://src.bna.com/ijM.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)