masseyf5的部落格

The applier in the legal proceeding of LG Phillips Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd and Others [2006], held a UK government grant for climbing a smooth as glass sheet retrospective machine within a two-part housing, which could be integrated into products such as laptops or allowed vertical machine monitors. The government grant was principally orientated at LCD displays for laptops. The applicant brought dealings opposed to cardinal defendants in the unobstructed part hearing. It was alleged that the defendants had infringed the rights through with the formation of a unopen electrical circuit telecasting display. The defendants denied infringement, and in actuality counterclaimed for the state of the rights in query on the limits of anticipation, noticeableness and shortage.

The applicant then sought to have one of the unobstructed claims amended in writ to get together constituent of the defendant's shield for annulment. The applier argued that their conduct would go wrong if the courts did not let the planned amendments. However, the defendants submitted that by allowing the amendments to appropriate place, added concern would be other to the patent contrary to s.76 of the Patents Act 1977 ("the Act").

The most primitive planned rectification designed the mining of the syllable structure of the ability to the fascia living accommodations. In the inventive patent, in attendance was no bring up on how the module would be connected. The applicant submitted that by devising this correction no supplementary entity would be added to the official document because in at least possible one incarnation of the invention, the thought that "the mental faculty should not be affixed to the advance housing" had been unveiled in the goods specification.

The 2nd projected amendment intended that the fastenings would be at the back the flat panel trade fair. This side appeared in a scheme of one of the preferable embodiments of the invention, but was other unfamiliar. In the imaginative patent, no approach of this phase having creative application had been ready-made.

The magistrate held that the amendments should not be allowed as they entrenched optional business different to s.76. He consequently fired the charge for breach and allowed the shield for revocation on the earth that the applicant had conceded that if the amendments were not made, their handling would neglect. The claimants after appealed to the trial of entreaty.

Their cachet was unemployed for the successive reasons:

§ If the verbal description disclosed knifelike sub-classes of the overall imaginative concept, consequently it should be at all to revise fallen to one of those sub-classes. However, in this proceeding the amendments which were sought were lonesome disclosed in a unique discourse and were not unveiled as having any inventive importance. Introducing them into a asseveration would have reduced them of that context, connotation that the amendments were not fitting to be supplementary to the declare. This is a procedure titled 'intermediate generalisation'. This is evidenced more clearly in the 2nd correction the claimant applied for. The 2d amendment proved to add an otherwise unspecified feature which had lone been shown in a squiggle. There was no scheme that the attribute had any ingenious significance, and the amendment did not desire to glue any separate features displayed in that comic strip. This is an excellent taster of next-to-last generalisation, which is not permitted.

§ It was command that the Act was want to hinder the owner of a rights from amending a allege to such as an degree that they were effectively want to guard a different excogitation to the one in the unproved petition. Therefore, provided the creativeness in the amended accusation was disclosed in the unproved candidature when read as a whole, it would not slight s.76 of the Act. Where the amendment incorporated a renunciation which narrow the claim, it was control that a proper repudiation did not 'add matter' if it was inserted into a averment to obviate an 'accidental' anticipation, but it did 'add matter' if it was inserted to forestall a 'non-accidental' expectation. An 'accidental' expectation is one in which a speech act relating to a far industrial corral is ready-made. It can besides grow wherever the concern substance concerned does not oblige to lick the job addressed by the official document in put somebody through the mill. In the case in question, the preliminary amendment either wanted to add a portion to the official document which was not addressed definitely everywhere before, or it sought-after to add a renunciation for products which had all the features of the assertion stockpile that the ability was known to the frontmost living accommodations. If the introductory analysis was correct, consequently the amendment would be deemed to add new originative consequence to the unobstructed and would cause offence the edict on tally situation. If the 2d investigation was correct, next the correction was effectively a renunciation incorporated for the meaning of preventing the accusation from extending to an item of prior art. It would be tough to start that the anterior art was in a distant scientific corral.

The official was as a result word-perfect to have disallowed both amendments.

If you ask more records experience us at . Visit or

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not supply a all-round or total dispatch note of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it be lawful warning. It is fated solitary to give emphasis to comprehensive issues. Specialist allowed counsel should always be sought-after in relative amount to unusual state of affairs.