LG Philips LCD Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd & Ors

LG Philips LCD Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd & Ors

The proposed amendments to claim 34 constituted added matter as they introduced features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original specification, amounting to an impermissible intermediate generalisation. The amendments were not supported by the specification and thus fell foul of section 76. The patent as sought to be amended would not be infringed by the respondents, and the alleged invention was obvious over the cited prior art. The appeal was dismissed and the counterclaim for revocation allowed.

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 From Patents Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; counterclaim for revocation allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Added Matter, Obviousness, Infringement, Revocation
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Amendment Added Matter Obviousness Infringement Revocation

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 8 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 From Patents Court

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 amendments lacked clarity under section 14(5)
  3. 3 Whether the respondents infringed the patent as sought to be amended

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to claim 34 constituted added matter as they introduced features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original specification, amounting to an impermissible intermediate generalisation. The amendments were not supported by the specification and thus fell foul of section 76. The patent as sought to be amended would not be infringed by the respondents, and the alleged invention was obvious over the cited prior art. The appeal was dismissed and the counterclaim for revocation allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; counterclaim for revocation allowed

Orders

  • Claim for infringement dismissed
  • Patent revoked