Tamglass Ltd. Oy v Luoyang North Glass Technology Company Ltd. & Anor

A patent is not anticipated where the prior art lacks material claim integers, including substantially simultaneous bending, oscillation, or the claimed horizontal conveyor arrangement. Differences are not obvious merely because an engineer might devise them with hindsight; the court must assess whether the skilled addressee would have taken the relevant steps.

For infringement under section 60 of the Patents Act 1977, an offer may exist even without a formal contractual offer. Advertising or approaching potential customers with willingness to supply patented machinery can disturb the patentee’s monopoly and constitute an offer to dispose. Knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances, and infringement may alternatively be obvious to a reasonable person.

Tamglass alleged infringement of European patent (UK) No 0261611, concerning an integrated glass-bending and tempering process. The first defendant manufactured and supplied the machine to the second defendant, which kept and used it. The first defendant counterclaimed for revocation for lack of novelty and obviousness.

The court determined title, infringement, and validity. The defendants relied principally on two US patents and a UK patent application. The central issues were whether those disclosures anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed inventions, and whether the defendants had infringed by importing, supplying, offering, using, or keeping the machine and products.

1. Title. The claimant established title to the patent. Written assignments and transfers by operation of Finnish law through mergers and demergers satisfied sections 30(3) and 30(6) of the Patents Act 1977 (para [14]).
2. Infringement by the machine. The admitted features of the Novaglaze machine corresponded to the relevant claim integers. Additional features did not prevent infringement. The machine therefore infringed, including claim 7 (paras [15]-[16]).
3. Validity. The US patents numbered 4540425 and 4540426, and UK application 2028301A, did not anticipate the patent. They lacked material features including substantially simultaneous bending across the glass, oscillation, the claimed substantially horizontal arrangement, and the relevant mechanism for altering curvature. The differences were not obvious developments for the skilled addressee. The revocation claim therefore failed (paras [23]-[32]).
4. Offers and knowledge. Under section 60(1) of the Patents Act 1977, the fax advertising LNG’s machines to an English company was an offer, although it was not a formal contractual offer. The court applied the reasoning in Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd [1995] RPC 383 (para [37]). LNG knew, or it was obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that use of the processes without consent would infringe (paras [38]-[41]).
5. Novaglaze infringed by using and keeping the apparatus, using the patented processes, and keeping, offering, and selling products obtained directly from those processes. It knew of the infringement or was wilfully blind to it; alternatively, infringement was obvious to a reasonable person (para [42]-[43]).
6. The patent was valid and both defendants infringed. The precise relief was reserved for a later hearing (para [44]).