The Court of Appeal has held that the skilled person (which can be a team of individuals) may vary depending on the question in issue (e.g. obviousness, novelty, sufficiency or construction). The patents in suit taught the use of marine Controlled Source Electromagnetic (”CSEM”) surveying to locate oil or gas. For the purposes of sufficiency (a post-patent issue), an exploration geophysicist and a CSEM expert would form the skilled team implementing the invention. In contrast, for the purposes of obviousness (a pre-patent issue), the skilled team would not comprise both types of expert, since the geophysicist would have had no apparent use for CSEM technology. In holding the two patents in issue to be valid, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s first instance finding that the skilled team is always the same as well as its subsequent decision that the two patents in issue were obvious.
See for the full text of this case www.KluwerIPCases.com
See also http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/8…
List All »
Filed under: Countries, United Kingdom, Validity | No Comments »
03 Sep. 2010
by Kaja Veel Midtbø
In this case the Supreme Court affirmed that the transfer of a computer program could be regarded as an act of indirect patent infringement. Although the commissioned research and development of the program was covered by the experimental use/research exemption, a majority of three judges held that the transfer of the results of such research in the form of a ‘means’ that could be modified and implemented by the commissioning party into an infringing device could incur liability for indirect patent infringement.
See for the full text of this case www.KluwerIPCases.com. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
List All »
Filed under: (Indirect) infringement, Uncategorized | No Comments »
This case concerned the issue of patentability. The Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO) refused a patent application on the grounds that the invention only consisted in an automation of a known process. This DKPTO decision was appealed before the High Court and subsequently brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision that very special circumstances must apply to set aside the expert assessment on patentability carried out by the DKPTO and – lacking such evidence – confirmed the refusal of the application.
Full text of this case currently not available. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
List All »
Filed under: Denmark, Exceptions to patentability, Other (procedural) | No Comments »
By 24 similar decisions rendered on 14 April 2010, the Cour d’Appel of Paris held that new Article L. 614-7 of the French Intellectual Property Code, implementing the London Agreement, applies not only to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published after 1 May 2008 but also to European patents in respect of which the mention of grant had been published before 1 May 2008. One of these decisions is here summarized.
read more »
Filed under: Amendments, EPC, France, Other (procedural) | No Comments »
One of the topics that have kept our Courts busy over the last few years relates to which test should be applied to judge “equivalence”. Whereas the U.S.’s “same function-same way-same result” test has been accepted in cases involving mechanical patents, it has been discarded in cases dealing with chemical patents. In its judgment of [...] read more »
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »
The Danish Supreme Court dismissed Meyn’s claim against Linco and declared Meyn’s patent invalid.read more »
Filed under: Denmark, EPC, Inventive step, Mechanical Engineering, Novelty, Validity | No Comments »
By decision of 9 June 2010, the Italian Supreme Court tackled the issue of patent exhaustion in a manner which may give rise to some debate. The case concerned a claim of infringement brought by Bavelloni, an Italian manufacturer of machines for glass processing, against competitor Bottero which had exhibited in a trade fair a [...] read more »
Filed under: (Indirect) infringement, Extent of Protection, Italy | No Comments »
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has been asked to consider whether the draft agreement for the proposed European Patent Litigation System is compatible with the European Union treaties. On 2 July 2010, Advocate General Kokott provided an opinion (which has only recently been made publicly available) advising the CJEU to [...] read more »
Filed under: EPC, European Union | 1 Comment »
The Duesseldorf Court of Appeal referred in a recent decision to the commandment “You shall not lie!” – with severe consequences as to the cost risk of patent proceedings (court order of 15 April 2010 – ref. I-2 W 10/10; InstGE 12, 107 – Du sollst nicht lügen!).
Under German law, the losing party has to [...] read more »
Filed under: (Indirect) infringement, Account of profits, Damages, Germany, Injunction | No Comments »
The Court of Appeal held that AGA’s patent was not infringed by Occlutech in a case of septal occlusion devices, which feature braided metal strands and have a collapsed configuration for delivery through a channel in a patient’s body.Occlutech’s devices, which feature strands that are welded at one end of the device were found to fall outside of the scope of AGA’s patent, which was construed to be limited to devices which clamp the strands on the opposed ends of the device.
Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com.
List All »
Filed under: Extent of Protection, United Kingdom | No Comments »
Recent Comments