- Court of Appeal upholds finding that patent relating to use of ceric oxide as catalyst for purifying vehicle exhaust gases is valid (Anan Kasei v Neo)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The patent and invention
- The first insufficiency attack advanced
- The second insufficiency attack advanced
- What did the court decide?
- The first insufficiency attack
- The second insufficiency attack
- Case details
IP analysis: The Court of appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Anan Kasei’s European patent concerning the use of ceric oxide as a catalyst for purifying vehicle exhaust gases was valid, but dismissed Neo’s appeal relating to procedural issues concerning joint tortfeasors and when a director, shareholder or subsidiary might be held liable in the context of corporate disputes.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial