Saint-Gobain ADFORS S.A.S vs 3M Innovative Properties Company

This case concerned a dispute over the validity of a European Patent (UK) and the use of CT scan files in related proceedings between Saint-Gobain ADFORS S.A.S and 3M Innovative Properties Company.

TLDR:

• Saint-Gobain challenged the validity of 3M's European Patent (UK) 2 373 755.
• The court had to determine whether the CT scan files were referred to in open court.
• The court ruled that the CT scan files were indeed referred to and could be used in other proceedings.

The claimant, Saint-Gobain ADFORS S.A.S (SG), filed a lawsuit against the defendant, 3M Innovative Properties Company (3M), challenging the validity of European Patent (UK) 2 373 755. SG argued that the patent was invalid due to lack of novelty and inventive step, among other grounds.

During the trial, the court examined the patent's validity and found it invalid for insufficiency, as it did not enable a skilled person to perform the invention across the breadth of the claim. The court also addressed the use of CT scan files related to the Rowenhorst particles, which were key evidence in the case.

SG had obtained these CT scan files from 3M and used them to produce 3D representations and measurements of the particles. The court had to decide whether these files were referred to in open court and if they could be used in other proceedings.

The court found that the CT scan files were indeed referred to during the trial, as various references were made to them in the opening submissions, expert reports, and closing arguments. This meant that the files could be used in other legal proceedings under CPR 31.22(1)(a).

3M sought an order to restrict the use of the CT scan files under CPR 31.22(2), arguing that they contained confidential information. However, the court found that 3M had not acted promptly in seeking this order and had not demonstrated that the files contained valuable commercial information.

The court ruled that SG could continue to use the CT scan files in other proceedings, as there was no significant risk of damage to 3M's commercial interests. The court also accepted SG's undertaking to give 3M 21 days' notice before using the files for any purpose other than legal proceedings.

Legal representatives: James Abrahams KC and Michael Conway (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the claimant, Henry Edwards (instructed by Bristows LLP) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Michael Tappin KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EWHC 2769 (Pat)