Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH v Waters Ltd

Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH v Waters Ltd

The control means specified in the patent claim must itself adjust the stroke length in response to the desired flow rate, not the operator. The manual device, where the operator independently selects both parameters, does not infringe the claim.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH; Respondent/defendant: Waters Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Claim Construction
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Claim Construction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agilent Technologies Deutschland GmbH

Appellant/claimant

Waters Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim 1 of the patent covers the manual device produced by Waters Limited
  2. 2 Proper construction of the phrase 'control means...for adjusting the stroke length...in response to the desired flow rate'

Ratio Decidendi

The control means specified in the patent claim must itself adjust the stroke length in response to the desired flow rate, not the operator. The manual device, where the operator independently selects both parameters, does not infringe the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed