Category: Intellectual Property

Semitel Limited (Patent): IPO 19 Oct 2010

The decision concerns a review of opinion 33/09. The opinion concluded that there was no infringement of the patent. The exclusive licensee requested that the opinion be set aside. The request was unopposed – no counterstatement was filed. One of the grounds for setting aside was not permitted by rule 98(5), but the Hearing Officer accepted that there were other, permissible grounds for a review. He accepted the requester’s argument that the opinion had not interpreted one part of the patent specification correctly. The opinion was set aside.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o35710

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458111

Steven Mclellan, Distribuidora Internacional De Medicamentos Y Equipo Medico, SA De CV, Richard Paul Hayes-Pankhurst, Graham Keith Lacy, Julian Francis Ralph Swan (Patent): IPO 14 Oct 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Steven McLellan under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that he should be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application along with Richard Paul Hayes-Pankhurst, Graham Keith Lacy and Julian Francis Ralph Swan, and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application.

Judges:

Mrs S Williams

Citations:

O/350/10, [2010] UKIntelP o35010, GB 0905015.4

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458112

Polytan Planungs-Und Baugwsellschart Fuer Sportlagen Mbh Co, Edel Grass BV and Fieldturf Holdings Inc (Patent) O/412/10: IPO 30 Nov 2010

IPO This is the consolidation of two individual actions for the revocation of two GB patents held by Fieldturf, GB 2329910 and its divisional GB 2350843. Fieldturf applied to amend these two patents under s75 during the course of these actions. As a result of the applicants for revocation stating that they no longer wish to pursue their applications for revocation under section 72, it was considered whether to pursue revocation in the public interest. The Hearing Officer found that revocation should not be pursued as there was no clear lack of novelty or inventive step in the claims as proposed to be amended. Despite some earlier reservations as to their clarity being expressed on behalf of the Comptroller, the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the proposed amendments to the claims were allowable in respect of issues other than novelty and inventive step. Therefore the Hearing Officer allowed the patents to be amended in the form sought by the proprietor and made no orders for revocation of the patents.

Judges:

Mr A Bartlett

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o41210, GB 2350843, GB 2329910

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 72

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458120

Phorm UK Inc (Patent): IPO 20 Oct 2010

IPO The application relates to a method for a service provider to target content delivery to a network node based on information requests from the network node.
The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being a program for a computer as such.

Judges:

Mr S Brown

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o36510, O/365/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458107

University of Queensland Csl Limited (Patent): IPO 24 Sep 2010

IPO Applications for SPCs for 6 different single Humanpapilloma Virus (HPV) L1 protein virus like particles (VLPs) (2 for HPV16, 2 for HPV18, 1 for HPV11 and 1 for HPV6) were filed in addition to one application for a product comprising HPV16 and HPV18 L1 protein VLPs and one application for a product comprising HPV6, HPV11, HPV16 and HPV18 L1 protein VLPs. Three basic patents were cited in support of these applications, EP 0595535 B1 and two divisionals derived from it, EP 0128911 B1 and EP 1359156 B1. The marketing authorisations (MAs) for Cervarix which is a vaccine against HPV infection by HPV16 and HPV18 and that for Gardasil/Silgard which is a vaccine against infection by HPV6, HPV11, HPV16 and HPV18 were used in support of all these SPC applications.
This is the latest case which concerns the proper interpretation of what ‘protected by the basic patent’ means in Article 3(a) and what is the product in a medicinal product that a valid marketing authorisation allows to be placed on the market under Article 3(b). The hearing officer accepted the applicants request for a decision on these applications rather than to stay the cases pending the outcome of the referal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the UK courts on appeal from the Medeva (BL O/357/09) and Georgetown et al. (BL O/401/09) decisions as this case raises related relevant questions.
Having reviewed the case law in this area and considered what was the medicinal product that each MA authorised, the hearing officer found that the neither of these MAs was a valid authorisation to place any of the six single HPV L1 protein VLP products on the market as a medicinal product because each related to a combination of active ingredients as distinct from a single active ingredient. As a result, applications SPC/GB/07/015-017, SPC/GB/07/021, SPC/GB/07/081 and SPC/GB/07/082 were found not to meet the requirement of Article 3(b) of the Regulation. The hearing officer found that the examples of SPCs, cited by the applicant, which had been granted on this basis in the past did not justify altering this decision.
The hearing officer also found that the basic patents cited did not protect either of the combination HPV L1 protein VLP products for which an SPC was being sought as they only described methods for preparing single HPV L1 protein VLPs, the HPV L1 protein VLPs made by this method and vaccines prepared from HPV L1 protein VLPs made by this method. Nothing in these patents suggested that these single HPV products would be used in combination with each other. Thus applications SPC/GB/07/014 and SPC/GB/07/084 failed to meet the requirement of Article 3(a) of the Regulation. The relevance of the reference to the CJEU was discussed briefly.
Since in accordance with Article 10(3) an opportunity to correct the irregularities with each application has been given, the application, as required by Article 10(4), was rejected.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o33510

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458085

Dell Products Lp (Patent): IPO 16 Sep 2010

IPO The application relates to an automated method for placing orders for replacements to legacy information handling systems. The method operates to identify systems within an overall system that should be replaced, for example because they are too slow, have insufficient memory, have limited networking capability or are otherwise aged. The applicant asserted that there were technical considerations in determining which systems to replace and that therefore the application should not be excluded. The Hearing Officer held, on applying the Aerotel test that the contribution was in the excluded field of a business method and a computer program for applying that business method. The system operated to apply a number of rules to determine which systems should be replaced and automated the ordering process to obtain replacement systems. Any improvement in the computer system was achieved by the step of purchasing new systems. The Hearing Officer therefore refused the application.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o32110, O/321/10

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458068

Richard Wragg v Mike Donnelly (Patent): IPO 9 Aug 2010

Claim construction, Infringement, Inventive step, Sufficiency – The patent relates to a device for conducting fluid released from a pressure relief valve of a boiler, via a conduit, to the outside of a building and changing direction of the fluid using a cup-shaped portion at the end of the conduit. The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement in relation to his Flowflex Pipe Cowl and also alleged the claims to be invalid. The case had previously been the subject of two Opinions.
The hearing officer held that the examples of similar mechanisms being used in other contexts were too different from the present application to justify a finding of obviousness. He also held that the saucer-shaped Flowflex Pipe Cowl endpiece worked in the same way as the cup-shaped endpieces of the invention’s embodiments, and that the holes in the side of the pipe, which extended to the endpiece, meant that the end of the pipe was open to the external environment, as required by the claims of the patent. He therefore declined to grant a declaration of non-infringement.
The hearing officer gave costs on the usual scale to the defendant. He refused to grant costs off-scale, which had been requested on the grounds that the claimant had already had two Opinions go against him, as to do so would be to dissuade potential litigants from instead using the opinions service for fear of a later costs penalty.

Judges:

Mr J Elbro

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o28010, O/280/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1 3 77

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458057

DLP Limited, James Self, Robert William Stimpson and Graham Robin Lock (Patent): IPO 13 Aug 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by DLP Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that James Self should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Robert William Stimpson and Graham Robin Lock in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o29110

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.458039