Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

The Court of Appeal held that the patent was not obvious or anticipated over the cited prior art. The invention was not obvious to the notional skilled person/team at the priority date, as evidenced by the lack of prior adoption, the reactions of leading experts, and the failure of the prior art to suggest the claimed method for thin hydrocarbon layers. The secondary evidence strongly supported inventiveness. The judge at first instance erred in his approach to the person skilled in the art and in discounting the secondary evidence. The appeal was allowed and the patent held valid.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Schlumberger Holdings Limited; Defendant/appellant: Electromagnetic Geoservices AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; patent held valid.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Person Skilled in the Art, Secondary Evidence, Patent Construction
Intellectual Property Law Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Person Skilled in the Art Secondary Evidence Patent 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schlumberger Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent for a method of using marine CSEM to detect hydrocarbons is invalid for obviousness or anticipation over prior art (Chave, MacGregor, Srnka, Yuan)
  2. 2 Whether the 'person skilled in the art' is the same for all purposes in patent law
  3. 3 The role and weight of secondary evidence in assessing obviousness

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the patent was not obvious or anticipated over the cited prior art. The invention was not obvious to the notional skilled person/team at the priority date, as evidenced by the lack of prior adoption, the reactions of leading experts, and the failure of the prior art to suggest the claimed method for thin hydrocarbon layers. The secondary evidence strongly supported inventiveness. The judge at first instance erred in his approach to the person skilled in the art and in discounting the secondary evidence. The appeal was allowed and the patent held valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; patent held valid.

Orders

  • Patent held not invalid for obviousness or anticipation over Chave, MacGregor, Srnka, or Yuan.
  • Consequential order to be agreed by the parties or submitted for determination.