University of Queensland v Siemens Magnet Technology Ltd & Anor

University of Queensland v Siemens Magnet Technology Ltd & Anor

The patent is invalid for added matter because the feature of 'common inner radius' was not disclosed in the application as filed but was introduced into the granted patent. The patent is also invalid for obviousness because, in light of the Ohta prior art and common general knowledge, the claimed invention was obvious to a skilled person. The claims are too broad and not limited to the non-obvious method of design. Accordingly, the action fails and the patent is revoked.

Parties
Claimant: University of Queensland; First Defendant: Siemens Magnet Technology Limited; Second Defendant: Siemens PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for revocation of patent succeeds.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Added Matter, Obviousness, Insufficiency
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Added Matter Obviousness Insufficiency

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of Queensland

Claimant

Siemens Magnet Technology Limited

First Defendant

Siemens PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants infringed UK patent GB 2 308 451
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for added matter
  3. 3 Whether the patent is invalid for obviousness

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for added matter because the feature of 'common inner radius' was not disclosed in the application as filed but was introduced into the granted patent. The patent is also invalid for obviousness because, in light of the Ohta prior art and common general knowledge, the claimed invention was obvious to a skilled person. The claims are too broad and not limited to the non-obvious method of design. Accordingly, the action fails and the patent is revoked.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for revocation of patent succeeds.

Orders

  • Patent GB 2 308 451 is revoked.
  • The action for infringement is dismissed.