SEB v De’Longhi Appeal

Originally published July 2003

This was an appeal made by the appellant/patentee SEB against the finding of the judge that the patent, which concerned so called "cool – wall" fryers, was obvious over common general knowledge. Peter Gibson LJ, giving the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, upheld the decision of Pumfrey J.

De’Longhi, the defendants/respondents, cross-appealed [1] the findings on infringement and insufficiency, which Pumfrey J had made in favour of SEB. On these issues as well, Pumfrey J was upheld.

As is commonly the case, infringement was tied up with construction. The main issue for the Court had been what the word "closed" meant in context of the claims. Once the Court had decided "closed" did not require a hermetic seal, the fact that the defendants’ fryers had tiny gaps between the two components concerned did not mean they did not fall within the claims. The consequent finding of infringement was upheld, without the need