a patent infringement lawsuit

a patent infringement lawsuit
The plaintiffs in the case of LG Philips v Tatung Co Ltd (UK) Ltd and Others [2006], which a British patent for mounting a flat panel display device within two enclosures, which could be incorporated in products such as laptops or free-standing computer monitors. The patent was largely devoted to the LCD displays for laptops. The plaintiff brought against the three defendants in the County Patent Court. It has been alleged that the defendants against the patent by creating a CCTV - Monitor. The defendants deny infringement, and actually counterclaimed for the revocation of the patent in question on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness and insufficiency.

The applicant seeks to be one of the claims are amended, a part of the defendant in the case of a revocation. The plaintiffs argued that their action would fail if the courts did not allow the proposed changes. However, the defendants argued that, by the changes taking place further question would be to the patent on p. 76 of the Patents Act 1977 ( "the Act").

The first proposed amendment, the repeal of attaching the module to the front housing. In the original patent, there was no mention of how the module would be attached. The plaintiff argued that this change would be no further question, because the patent at least one incarnation of the invention, the idea that "the module should not be on the front housing" were included in the specification.

The second proposed change means that the fittings would be behind the flat panel. This feature in a drawing of one of the preferred embodiments of the invention, but otherwise unidentified. In the original patent, no mention of this feature with inventive significance was.

The judges ruled that the amendments are not admissible because it is a supplementary question, in contrast to P. 76. He dismissed the claim for infringement and allowed in the event of revocation on the ground that the plaintiff had conceded that if the changes were not made, what the action is not. The plaintiffs appealed the Court of Appeal.

Their appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

§ If the specification disclosed distinct classes of the general inventive concept, then it should be possible to change to one of these sub-classes. However, in this case the changes that have been applied only in a specific context and were not disclosed, as with an inventive significance. Introducing a right they had by this connection, which means that the changes were not to be added to the call. This is a process of "generalization." This is reflected especially in the second amendment of the applicant requested. The second amendment is trying to use a different unknown function, which only in a drawing. There was no suggestion that the function had inventive significance, and the change will not want to add all the other features in the drawing. This is an excellent example of intermediate objectives generalization that is not allowed.

§ It was noted that the law to prevent the holder of a patent to amend the claim to such an extent that they effectively protect the other invention, with the initial notification. Therefore, if the invention in the amended claim was in the original application, when read as a whole, it would not offend p. 76 of the Act. Will the modification, a disclaimer, which reduces demand, it was noted that a disclaimer is not "Add Question", if it is entitled to a "random" anticipation, but it does add matter "when she was brought to a" non-accidental 'anticipation. A "random" Anticipation is one in which a disclosure in relation to a remote technical field. It can also occur if the subject matter is not helping to solve the problem by the patent in question. In this case, the first amendment either trying to function to the patent that is not mentioned before, or they tried to make a statement on the disclaimer for products that claim all the features of the store that the module has been on the housing front . If the initial analysis was correct, then the change would be as inventive new importance for the patent and would offend the decision about adding matter. If the second analysis was correct, then the change was a disclaimer for the purposes of the prevention of exposure of up to a point the state of the art. It would be difficult to conclude that the state of the art was in a remote field of technology.

The judge was therefore right that both changes excluded.

If you need further information, please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com. Visit http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com or http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php

© RT Coopers, 2007. 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. Visit http://www.rtcoopersiplaw.com or http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_intellectualproperty.php