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

A patent claim must be construed purposively, in context, and by reference to the language used. An intentionally included limitation cannot be ignored. A “dry fryer” is not limited to a fryer using the particular heating and coating arrangements disclosed as the invention. “Substantially sealed” may encompass a chamber with a small gap, where the purpose is to recycle heat while permitting steam to escape. For obviousness, the court applies the structured Pozzoli approach, avoiding hindsight and considering the age, clarity, suitability and teaching of the prior art. Relative movement between a receiver and stirrer may satisfy a claim even where other components contribute to mixing.

SEB owned European Patent (UK) No 2 085 003 for a fryer using a small quantity of fat. Jarden sought revocation for obviousness over Vogt, Herbst and Siu. SEB and Groupe SEB UK counterclaimed that Jarden’s Breville Halo Health fryer infringed claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 13.

The issues concerned construction of “dry fryer”, “substantially sealed”, “mounted on the main body” and related claim integers; obviousness over the three items of prior art; and infringement by the Halo.

1. Construction. The term “dry fryer” was defined by the patent as cooking without immersion in a bath of fat. It did not exclude shallow frying and did not import all the additional features of the claimed invention. “Mingling” meant stirring with mixing, but the claim did not exclude contributions by other parts of the fryer. A “substantially sealed” chamber could have a small gap which allowed heat recycling and steam release. For claim 9, the skilled reader would understand the lid to be an optional and distinct part of the main body, so a heater mounted in the lid could be mounted on the main body. The construction principles were those summarised in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1062.
2. Obviousness. Applying the structured approach in Pozzoli v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588, claims 1 and 3 were obvious over Siu. Claims 1, 3 and 8 were obvious over Herbst. Vogt was unclear, old and an unsuitable starting point. Even if considered, reaching claims 10, 11 and 13 would require several substantial redesigns, including changes contrary to Vogt’s teaching. The alleged route from Vogt was hindsight.
3. Infringement. Claims 1 and 3 would have been infringed if valid. The Halo’s bar and paddle both contributed to stirring and mixing, and the gap around its lid did not prevent a substantially sealed chamber. Claim 8 was not infringed because only part of the stirrer means was stationary. Claims 10, 11 and 13 were infringed because the heater in the lid was mounted on the main body and the remaining integers were satisfied.
4. The patent claims were therefore partly invalid for obviousness, while the relevant infringement findings were as stated above.