Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA & Anor

Patent claims must be construed purposively and in their full context under European Patent Convention, but the purpose revealed by the description and drawings cannot override clear claim language or a deliberate limitation.

Reference numerals may help a reader identify features in an embodiment. They cannot influence the construction or extend the scope of a claim. Where a patent distinguishes a lid from the main body, a limitation requiring heater means mounted on the main body does not cover heater means mounted entirely in the lid.

SEB owned a patent for a dry fryer which coated food with a small quantity of fat and cooked it using a directed flow of heat. Jarden manufactured the Halo fryer, whose infrared heater was wholly in its lid.

Arnold J held claims 1, 3 and 8 invalid, and held claims 10, 11 and 13 valid and infringed. Jarden appealed the construction which led to infringement. It also challenged the finding that the heater-means claims were not obvious over the Vogt prior-art patent.

The central issue was whether the claim requirement that the main heater means be mounted on the main body included a heater mounted entirely on the lid.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Vos LJ, with whom Burnett and Lloyd LJJ agreed, held that the judge had erred by allowing reference numerals to influence the construction of the claims. The rule stated in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1062 permitted numerals to orient the reader to an embodiment, but not to determine the meaning or scope of a claim.

2. Under article 69 of the European Patent Convention, the claims had to be read purposively in the context of the description and drawings. That exercise did not make the supposed technical purpose of the invention decisive. The claim language, including an obvious restriction deliberately adopted by the patentee, remained controlling.

3. Claims 3 and 4 expressly treated the lid and the main body as distinct: the lid and main body formed the chamber, and a hinge connected them. The specification did not clearly show otherwise once the identifying numerals were disregarded. Further, the main heater means comprised the fan and heater element which generated heat, not the inlet, outlet or lid ducting through which heat travelled.

4. Accordingly, claim 9 did not include a main heater means mounted entirely in the lid. Since the Halo’s heater was entirely in its lid, it did not infringe claims 10, 11 or 13. The court declared accordingly.

5. Although unnecessary to the disposal, Vos LJ would not disturb the judge’s conclusion that the relevant claims were not obvious over Vogt. It was open to the judge, having preferred SEB’s expert evidence, to find that Vogt was not a useful starting point because developing it would require fundamental changes contrary to its teaching.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed Jarden’s appeal and declared that claims 10, 11 and 13 were not infringed by the Halo fryer: [2014] EWCA Civ 1629.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court (Arnold J) On 28 February 2014, held claims 1, 3 and 8 invalid; held claims 10, 11 and 13 valid and infringed; and rejected the relevant obviousness challenge. The judgment citation is not stated in the judgment.