Patent decision
- BL number
- O/068/18
- Concerning rights in
- GB2468836B
- Hearing Officer
- Mr S Probert
- Decision date
- 30 January 2018
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Phyto Holdings Ltd v Citrox Biosciences Ltd
- Provisions discussed
- Sect 72(1)(a), 72(1)(c)
- Keywords
- Novelty, Revocation
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
An application for revocation of a patent relating to a method of sterilising surfaces (eg. hospital wards, ambulances, kitchens) using a fine aerial dispersion (mist) of a compound containing certain flavonoids.
It was common ground that the compound was known in the prior art, and the dispute focused on the significance of ‘misting’ and whether this was practically different from spraying or fogging - both of which were known in the prior art.
The claimant established prior use of a product according to the invention using a device called a mistblower to sterilise a poultry house. The hearing officer concluded that this was a novelty destroying prior use.
The hearing officer also indicated that if there had not been prior use, he would have found for the claimant on obviousness, since all the evidence pointed towards ‘fogging’ and ‘misting’ being used synonymously in the relevant technical field.
The hearing officer allowed time for submissions on costs, but also gave his preliminary view as to the appropriate award.
Full decision O/068/18 
367Kb
