Category: Intellectual Property

Helimedia Limited (Patent): IPO 15 Jun 2010

IPO The Hearing Officer decided not to refuse a request for an opinion on the validity of GB 2377538 B. The request was based on material considered by the EPO when refusing an equivalent European application. The proprietor of the patent was of the view, despite the refusal of the EP application, and an equivalent US application, that the GB patent was valid. The proprietor was seeking to assert the GB patent against the requester. The Hearing Officer concluded that an opinion on the validity of the patent could help resolve the dispute.

Judges:

Mr P Thorpe

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o19210, GB 2377538 B

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 74A

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457976

Khalil Arafat (Patent): IPO 10 May 2010

IPO The invention relates to a touch sensitive user interface for an electronic device, for example, a mobile telephone, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), MP3 player or similar hand-held device. The application as a whole describes various embodiments whereby gestures or combinations of gestures (e.g. movements of the finger across the surface of a touch-sensitive display associated with the device) can be used to invoke specific functions, such as, launching an application, dialing telephone numbers or controlling audio playback in an MP3 player.
The invention more specifically relates to an arrangement in which a first gesture, for example, a movement of the finger from left-to-right across the screen is used to move to the next page in a sequence of pages whilst a second gesture, retracing the path of the first gesture, for example, a reverse stroke of the finger from right-to-left across the display causes the display to move back to the previous page in the sequence. If the user, then combines, or links these gestures to create a third gesture e.g. by stroking the finger first from left-to-right and then right-to-left without removing his finger from the surface of the screen, an additional function is invoked.
The Hearing Officer found the invention as currently claimed to lack an inventive step in light of the prior-art cited by the examiner. However, the applicant was given 2 months to file further amendments to overcome the examiner’s inventive step objection otherwise the application is to be refused under section 18(3).

Judges:

Mr P Slater

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o14310, O/143/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1)(b)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457949

Compactgtl Plc, Stryker, Decker, Le, Bowe and Vitucci (Patent): IPO 24 May 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by CompactGTL PLC. As a result, it was found that Lawrence Andrew Stryker, Douglas Eugene Decker and Vinh N Le should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention along with the currently named inventors, Michael Joseph Bowe and John Vitucci. It was also directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o16310

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457939

BPB Limited, O’Keefe, Biguenet, Smith and Chotard (Patent): IPO 10 May 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by BPB Limited. As a result, it was found that Agnes Smith and Thierry Chotard should be mentioned as joint inventors in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention along with the currently named inventors, Samantha O’Keefe and Cedric Biguenet. It was also directed that an addendum slip mentioning Agnes Smith and Thierry Chotard as joint inventors be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.

Judges:

Mrs S Williams

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o14010, O/140/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 13(1)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457936

Linda Long (Patent): IPO 25 May 2010

IPO The invention related to indicating when a parking space on a car park was free or was occupied by a vehicle. The claimed invention achieved this by using a light source to illuminate an indicia, preferably on the ceiling, if there was no vehicle in a parking space and to cast a shadow on the indicia if there was a vehicle in the parking space. The hearing officer found that this invention lacked novelty and an inventive step over the disclosure of patent document DE 3904826 C1. He also found that the claim was unclear because the invention was defined by the result to be achieved. He therefore refused the application.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o16710

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457950

Endress Hauser Gmbh Co Kg, Wurth Elektronik Gmbh Co Kg, and Others (Patent): IPO 25 May 2010

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Endress + Hauser GmbH + Co. KG, Wurthe Elektronik GmbH + Co. KG, Dietmar Birgel, Paul Burger, Karl-Peter Hauptvogel, Andreas Bensch, Herbert Harder, Andreas Kiefer and Klaus Peter Weinhold. As a result, it was found that Andreas Bensch, Herbert Harder, Andreas Kiefer and Klaus Peter Weinhold should be mentioned as joint inventors in the granted patent for the invention along with the currently named inventors, Dietmar Birgel, Paul Burger and Karl-Peter Hauptvogel. It was also directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o16510

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457942

Maxluck Biotechnology Corp (Patent): IPO 28 Apr 2010

IPO The invention concerned a composition comprising lactoferrin and a trivalent chromium compound for use in the prevention or treatment of myocardial infarction – ie. heart attacks. The prior art showed the use of such a compound in the treatment of diabetes, and/or hyperlipidaemia (high cholesterol). It was common general knowledge that diabetes can promote cardiovascular disease, but the hearing officer decided that it did not necessarily follow that the skilled person would consider it obvious to take diabetic treatments and use them to treat or prevent myocardial infarction – not least because, according to the applicant, it was also common general knowledge that some hypoglycaemic drugs (for treating diabetes) actually increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (eg. myocardial infarction), and others give rise to side effects that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Following Ratiopharm v Napp [2009] RPC 11, the hearing officer decided that the skilled person comes armed with all the common general knowledge, some of which may lead towards the inventive concept, and some away from it.
As there were significant doubts in his mind as to the obviousness of the claimed invention, the hearing officer considered that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. The case was remitted to the examiner for the examination process to be concluded.

Judges:

Mr S Probert

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o13010

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457920

Lundberg Son VVS-Produckter Ae and Zgp Limited (Patent): IPO 5 Mar 2010

The proprietor of the patent requested a review of Opinion 11/09 which found that its patent was not infringed. The request argued that the opinion wrongly concluded that there was no infringement because it had misunderstood how the alleged infringing product worked. Such an argument is however outside the scope of Rule 98(5)(b) which provides for a review only on the ground that the opinion wrongly concluded that a particular act did not or would not constitute an infringement of the patent by reason of its interpretation of the specification of the patent in suit. The request for a review was therefore dismissed.

Judges:

Mr P Thorpe

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o08010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 74B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457895