LG Philips LCD Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1774 (20 December 2006)

LG Philips LCD Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1774 (20 December 2006)

The proposed amendments to claim 34 constituted added matter as they introduced features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original specification, contrary to section 76 of the Patents Act 1977. Even if the amendments were allowed, the patent would not be infringed by the respondents, and the alleged invention was obvious over the cited prior art. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the patent revoked.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1774
Parties
Claimant/appellant: LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Tatung (UK) Limited; Defendant/respondent: ViewSonic Europe Limited; Defendant/respondent: Number One Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Appeal From Patents Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patent revoked
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Patent Infringement, Patent Revocation, Added Matter, Obviousness, Clarity of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Amendment Patent Infringement Patent Revocation Added Matter Obviousness Clarity of Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Tatung (UK) Limited

Defendant/respondent

ViewSonic Europe Limited

Defendant/respondent

Number One Services Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Appeal From Patents Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to the patent constituted added matter under section 76 of the Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the patent as amended would be sufficiently clear under section 14(5)
  3. 3 Whether the patent was infringed by the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to claim 34 constituted added matter as they introduced features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original specification, contrary to section 76 of the Patents Act 1977. Even if the amendments were allowed, the patent would not be infringed by the respondents, and the alleged invention was obvious over the cited prior art. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the patent revoked.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patent revoked

Orders

  • Claim for infringement dismissed
  • Counterclaim for revocation allowed