Unknown case

Patent claims must be interpreted purposively, but the language of the claim cannot be disregarded. A claim requiring relative movement between contacting elements is not satisfied merely by movement relative to the skin. The claimed movement may occur at the skin-contacting ends, and alternating tension and compression may include the effects produced by a shear mode where that is the natural reading of the patent as a whole. Prosecution history is exceptional evidence and should be used only where the specification and claims leave the issue truly unclear or public interest requires it. For registered Community designs, prior art is part of the design corpus unless excluded as obscure under Article 7. The informed user’s overall impression must be assessed having regard to the design corpus and design freedom, including the combination of features.

L’Oréal Société Anonyme and L’Oréal (UK) Limited claimed infringement of European Patent (UK) 1 722 699 B1 and two registered Community designs by RN Ventures Limited’s Magnitone facial-cleansing devices. The patent dispute concerned the construction of claim 1, infringement by different movements of brush tufts, validity over Woog, sufficiency, and proposed amendment. The design dispute concerned the scope of protection of the 747 and 046 Designs, the relevant design corpus, design freedom and overall impression.

The court also considered whether the patent amendment complied with clarity and added-subject-matter requirements.

1. Patent construction. Claim 1 required relative movement between at least one moving contacting element and an adjacent contacting element. Movement relative only to the skin was insufficient. “Neutral position” referred to the rest position of the moving contacting element. The claim was not confined to movement at the base of the elements; movement at the skin-contacting tips was relevant where it produced the claimed effect (paras [51]–[55]).
2. Tension and compression. On the proper construction of the patent, the shear mode produced alternating tension and compression in the skin. The preferred shear embodiments were not excluded from the claim merely because the specification distinguished shear from tension/compression in describing the mechanical arrangements (paras [60]–[70]).
3. Prosecution history. The file did not unambiguously establish a disclaimer of shear mode, and the claim language was sufficiently clear without it. The prosecution history was therefore inadmissible and, in any event, unhelpful. Reference to prosecution history remained the exception, not the rule (paras [73]–[77]).
4. Infringement and validity. The swoosh and squeeze movements produced the required relative movement and fell within claim 1. The products infringed. The patent was not anticipated or rendered obvious by Woog, which did not clearly disclose the required movement in the plane of the bristle tips. The claim was sufficiently enabled because the skilled person could implement the general teaching using common general knowledge. The proposed amendment was allowed in clarified form, and the added-matter objection failed (paras [103]–[134]).
5. Registered designs. Prior art not excluded as obscure under Article 7 of Regulation 6/2002/EC formed part of the design corpus without proof that the informed user knew of it. The 747 Design represented a significant departure from the corpus and enjoyed wide design freedom. The Magnitone Products created the same overall impression and infringed it. The 046 Design had a narrow scope and was not infringed (paras [150]–[155], [160]–[185]).