freder0ck4的部落格

The claimant in the causa of LG Phillips Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd and Others [2006], held a UK official document for rising a level panel ordeal appliance within a two-part housing, which could be unified into products such as as laptops or uncommitted status machine monitors. The patent was chiefly directed at LCD displays for laptops. The applier brought dealings opposed to iii defendants in the patent county judicature. It was alleged that the defendants had infringed the exclusive rights through with the assembly of a nonopening electrical circuit box computer screen. The defendants denied infringement, and actually counterclaimed for the revocation of the exclusive rights in questioning on the precincts of anticipation, noticeableness and inadequacy.

The applicant next sought-after to have one of the patent claims revised in directive to collect fragment of the defendant's luggage for state. The applicant argued that their act would fail if the courts did not let the planned amendments. However, the defendants submitted that by allowing the amendments to rob place, extra matter would be value-added to the rights different to s.76 of the Patents Act 1977 ("the Act").

The introductory planned amendment intended the erasure of the morphology of the mental faculty to the forward structure. In the imaginative patent, within was no comment on how the mental faculty would be attached. The applicant submitted that by production this amendment no secondary entity would be other to the rights because in at tiniest one embodiment of the invention, the belief that "the faculty should not be appendant to the first housing" had been disclosed in the service specification.

The 2d planned rectification designed that the fastenings would be behind the straight sheet showcase. This element appeared in a illustration of one of the chosen embodiments of the invention, but was otherwise unknown. In the imaginative patent, no bring up of this point having inventive application had been ready-made.

The negotiator held that the amendments should not be allowed as they planted supplementary substance different to s.76. He that's why unemployed the claim for defiance and allowed the proceedings for state on the bottom that the applier had conceded that if the amendments were not made, their behaviour would fall through. The claimants later appealed to the committee of attractiveness.

Their appeal was discharged for the next reasons:

§ If the specification unveiled precise sub-classes of the general originative concept, afterwards it should be contingent to amend low to one of those sub-classes. However, in this causa the amendments which were sought-after were merely unveiled in a proper context and were not disclosed as having any originative importance. Introducing them into a charge would have underprivileged them of that context, designation that the amendments were not apt to be more to the maintain. This is a action called 'intermediate generalisation'. This is evidenced much definitely in the ordinal amendment the applicant applied for. The 2d correction proven to add an otherwise unheard of piece which had singular been shown in a table. There was no air that the characteristic had any ingenious significance, and the amendment did not need to paste any else features displayed in that figure. This is an terrific taster of junior generalisation, which is not permissible.

§ It was command that the Act was desire to forestall the businessman of a rights from amending a assertion to specified an level that they were efficaciously desire to protect a distinct excogitation to the one in the productive candidature. Therefore, provided the creativity in the amended asseveration was disclosed in the inspired request when publication as a whole, it would not anger s.76 of the Act. Where the rectification enclosed a renunciation which narrowed the claim, it was command that a specific disclaimer did not 'add matter' if it was inserted into a charge to go round an 'accidental' anticipation, but it did 'add matter' if it was inserted to outwit a 'non-accidental' expectation. An 'accidental' expectancy is one in which a disclosure relating to a far scientific paddock is made. It can likewise uprise where the idea substance troubled does not help out to puzzle out the hassle addressed by the exclusive rights in ask. In the suit in question, the eldest amendment either sought to add a part to the exclusive rights which was not addressed definitely anyplace before, or it sought-after to add a repudiation for products which had all the features of the assertion recover that the faculty was defined to the first living accommodations. If the basic analysis was correct, consequently the amendment would be deemed to add new creative bearing to the government grant and would outrage the guiding principle on totting up situation. If the 2nd investigation was correct, after the correction was effectively a repudiation enclosed for the goal of preventing the claim from extending to an part of antecedent art. It would be trying to establish that the preceding art was in a far-flung scientific parcel of land.

The trendsetter was thence true to have disallowed some amendments.

If you force further hearsay experience us at . Visit or

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not grant a general or exclusive dispatch note of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it be permissible guidance. It is well-meaning solitary to give emphasis to gross issues. Specialist legitimate proposal should ever be wanted in share to finicky lot.