The House described the status of patent claims: ‘The function of the claims is to define clearly and with precision the monopoly claimed, so that others may know the exact boundary of the area within which they will be trespassers. Their primary object is to limit and not to extend the monopoly. What is not claimed is disclaimed. The claims must undoubtedly be read as part of the entire document and not as a separate document; but the forbidden field must be found in the language of the claims and not elsewhere.’ The words and grammar of a sentence in a claim are to be given their ‘natural and ordinary meaning’, that is the meanings assigned to the words by a dictionary and to the syntax by a grammar. This meaning was to be adopted regardless of the context or background against which the words were used, unless they were ‘ambiguous’, that is to say, capable of having more than one meaning: ‘If the Claims have a plain meaning in themselves, then advantage cannot be taken of the language used in the body of the Specification to make them mean something different.’
Judges:
Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Porter
Citations:
(1938) 56 RPC 23
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rosedale Associated Manufacturers v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd CA 1960
. .
Cited – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.218730
