A claim was made for a method of design in which certain calculations were to be carried out recursively, modifying the results each time until a particular criterion was satisfied. Though the method was susceptible of solution by computer, but the claim was not limited in this way. Nor was the claim limited to the employment of such a method in the production of a physical article. It would have been infringed had the person employing the method stopped at the end of the necessary calculations. Claims might require to be to some form of specific industrial activity.
Judges:
Pumfrey J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1623 (Pat), [2006] RPC 25, [2005] Info TLR 323, [2006] RPC 2
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Inc and others Patc 9-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd Patc 8-Nov-2004
. .
Cited – Rockwater Ltd v Technip France Sa (Formerly Coflexip Sa), Technip Offshore UK Limited (Formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited) CA 1-Apr-2004
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 15-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 21-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 24-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 15-Dec-2006
. .
Cited – W L Gore and Associates Gmbh v Geox Spa PatC 7-Oct-2008
The claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to waterproof fabrics for shoes.
Held: The patents could not be set as invalid for obviousness. . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd CA 22-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors Group Ltd and Another PatC 21-Jan-2009
The claimant alleged infringement of its patent for certain airline seats.
Held: The defendant’s aircraft seating system did not infringe its EP (UK) 1,495,908 patent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.229315
