and patent infringement

and patent infringement
With Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH v Waters Ltd (2005), the applicant, the proprietor of a European patent for a pump and control, action against the defendant for patent infringement. The patent is for a pump for delivery of solvent under pressure, high -liquid chromatography columns. In particular, the patent relates to controlling the flow of the pump by changing the stroke volume and frequency of the piston reciprocations.

In earlier proceedings, the Court noted that an earlier version of the defendants in the unit (the "machine") against the plaintiff, the patent and the patent was valid. The defendant changed his unit to a new device (the manual device "), which are the subject of the patent dispute. The pump and control system for the device manually operated, which is also known as "manual" mode in which flow rate and stroke were independent of the operator. The result was that the manual no longer maintain any predetermined relationship between stroke volume and power that other than the maximum and minimum values possible frequencies and strokes.

The judges ruled that the defendant in the operating device is not against the patent applicants, because it is not within the scope of the patent.

The plaintiff appealed against the decision and argued that the patent which the defendant, the manual device as a matter of ordinary language as a "means (i) in connection to the drive, (ii) for the adjustment of the piston stroke length (iii) in response to the desired volume flow of the liquid, which (iv with the stroke volume is reduced when the flow rate is reduced and vice versa, (v), so that pulsations in the flow of the liquid at the output of the pump device are reduced ".
The complaint was dismissed and the Court of Appeal held that:

Claims to be, as if by the notional skilled people in the context;
In this case it was the "control means" in order to adapt the hub in response to the desired flow rate "is not the operator;
The operator was not part of the "control means" of the claim, and the reaction required exposure (iii) was not present, the defendant in the device, and
The judge was to find that the defendant does not infringe the device that are not within the scope of the patent.
If you require further information please contact us.

E-mail: enquiries@rtcoopers.com

© RT Coopers, 2005. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.

Intellectual property law firm advising on patents, patent lawyers, patent attorneys, copyright, know-how, trademarks, brands, copyright, IP lawyers, IP law firm, IP-IP attorneys reviews freedom to operate copyright lawyers, patent solicitors, branding, intellectual property lawyers, notaries, intellectual property.

Contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com. Visit our website at http://www.rtcoopers.com