Lousy Patent - Fifty-Fifty Amending It Won't Help; Quids Inwards Amongst Summary Judgment

this on BAILII: it's yesterday's determination inwards Ferag AG v Muller Martini Ltd [2006] EWHC 225 (Ch), a Patents Court ruling of Mr Justice Lewison.

Ferag, a print-finishing company, had a patent for methods for cutting or trimming printed products in addition to complained that Muller Martini's machine infringed it. Muller Martini, denying infringement, said the patent was invalid every bit beingness neither novel nor inventive. Ferag decided to launch a patent infringement activeness in addition to applied to improve claim 1 of its patent. Muller Martini maintained that the amendment, read inwards the lite of the patent's specification, was unclear.

Lewison J ditched Ferag's claim. The invention, whether inwards its master copy or amended form, was obvious inwards the lite of the prior art. feels sad for Ferag: this is some other of those cases where the patent possessor had gone to peachy lengths to brand his project design expect in addition to audio inventive: indeed, if every bit much project design had been shown past times the inventors every bit was shown past times Ferag's legal team, the number mightiness convey been quite different.


Quid pro quo

This piffling morsel appeared on Butterworths' continuingly fantabulous All England Direct subscription service. Quid Novi Ltd in addition to some other v Innvotec in addition to others, some other Chancery determination of Mr Justice Lewison yesterday, this fourth dimension beingness inwards the land of copyright.

Quid Novi, who had a describe of piece of job organization project design for a tax-efficient system for carbon trading, alleged that substantial parts of the project design had been copied past times B on behalf of Innvotec. The project design had been supplied to B, who had a full general outline of its content inwards hear when he wrote the allegedly infringing document. But it was denied that he had copied the bits of the project design laid upwardly out inwards Quid Novi's claim. Suing for copyright infringement, Quid Novi sought summary judgment. No, said Innvotec, the representative had to acquire to a total trial because (i) B mightiness convey copied from a document other than the project design in addition to (ii) without disclosure past times Quid Novi, it was non possible to demo that its project design was an master copy run inwards the outset place, since B had relied on sure inquiry which he had detailed inwards the plan.

Lewison J gave summary judgment inwards favour of Quid Novi. He ruled every bit follows:

* Once a claimant’s legal rights had been determined, in addition to the determination of those legal rights would inwards the ordinary agency convey resulted inwards a judgment, he ought inwards regulation to survive given judgment unless rattling potent reasons existed to the contrary.

* Having regard to the dry soil of the evidence both at the fourth dimension of the application in addition to every bit it mightiness convey been subsequently disclosure in addition to trial, in that location was nix to advise that Innvotec had a existent prospect of successfully challenging the originality of the project design or of establishing that B had copied from a source other than the plan.

* There beingness no other compelling argue for the number of copyright infringement to acquire to trial, the courtroom would grant summary relief inwards abide by of sure items identified inwards the particulars of copying.

is a flake anxious almost this. While he likes the reckon of summary judgment in addition to disapproves of using disclosure (discovery) every bit a angling expedition inwards the promise of finding some flaw inwards an IP owner's case, he wonders how the learned approximate could convey regard to "the dry soil of the evidence ... every bit it mightiness convey been subsequently disclosure in addition to trial": it's a neat play a joke on in addition to for certain beats the hassle of hearing the existent evidence when you're pretty sure the defendant's an infringer. Merpel wonders if the defendants' eyes were also unopen together in addition to they had a divide of shifty expect almost them ...