GE Healthcare Ltd v Perkinelmer Life Sciences (UK) Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 214 (Pat) (17 February 2006)

GE Healthcare Ltd v Perkinelmer Life Sciences (UK) Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 214 (Pat) (17 February 2006)

The patent was not anticipated by the cited prior art (Hooper, Rushbrooke) because neither disclosed subject matter which, if performed, would necessarily infringe the patent; nor did they provide clear and unmistakeable directions to use a phosphor with the claimed emission maximum in an SPT with a CCD detector....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 214 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant / Part 20 Defendant: GE Healthcare Limited; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: PerkinElmer Life Sciences (UK) Limited; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: PerkinElmer LAS (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for patent infringement dismissed; counterclaim for revocation and entitlement dismissed; patent held valid and not infringed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step (obviousness), Entitlement to Patent, Breach of Confidence
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step (obviousness) Entitlement to Patent Breach of Confidence

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GE Healthcare Limited

Claimant / Part 20 Defendant

PerkinElmer Life Sciences (UK) Limited

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

PerkinElmer LAS (UK) Limited

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation Action / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 1,007,971 is infringed by the defendants' activities
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step
  3. 3 Whether the patent rightfully belongs to PerkinElmer LAS Inc as successor in title

Ratio Decidendi

The patent was not anticipated by the cited prior art (Hooper, Rushbrooke) because neither disclosed subject matter which, if performed, would necessarily infringe the patent; nor did they provide clear and unmistakeable directions to use a phosphor with the claimed emission maximum in an SPT with a CCD detector. The patent was not obvious in light of the prior art and common general knowledge, as the inventive concept involved the use in an SPT of a phosphor with an emission maximum of 480nm–900nm and a CCD detector, which was not taught or suggested by the prior art. The entitlement and breach of confidence claims were not established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim for patent infringement dismissed; counterclaim for revocation and entitlement dismissed; patent held valid and not infringed.

Orders

  • Patent held valid
  • Patent not infringed by defendants