Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd & Ors

Aerotel Ltd v Wavecrest Group Enterprises Ltd & Ors

The only difference between the patent and the WATS prior art was the use of pre-payment instead of post-payment, which is not inventive. The judge made no error of principle in his approach to obviousness, and commercial success was not shown to be attributable to the invention. The patent is invalid for obviousness.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Aerotel Limited; Respondent/defendant: Wavecrest Group Enterprises Limited; Respondent/defendant: First National Telecom Services Limited; Respondent/defendant: FNT Holdings Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Wavecrest Enterprises plc; Respondent/defendant: Wavecrest (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Wavecrest Communications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Patent Validity, Prior Art, Commercial Success, Prepayment Telephone Systems
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Patent Validity Prior Art Commercial Success Prepayment Telephone Systems

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aerotel Limited

Appellant/claimant

Wavecrest Group Enterprises Limited

Respondent/defendant

First National Telecom Services Limited

Respondent/defendant

FNT Holdings Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Wavecrest Enterprises plc

Respondent/defendant

Wavecrest (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Wavecrest Communications Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Aerotel’s UK patent No. 2,171,877 is invalid for obviousness over prior art, particularly the WATS system
  2. 2 Whether the patent’s commercial success rebuts obviousness
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in principle in his approach to obviousness

Ratio Decidendi

The only difference between the patent and the WATS prior art was the use of pre-payment instead of post-payment, which is not inventive. The judge made no error of principle in his approach to obviousness, and commercial success was not shown to be attributable to the invention. The patent is invalid for obviousness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upheld.