GE Healthcare Ltd v Perkinelmer Life Sciences (UK) Ltd & Anor

GE Healthcare Ltd v Perkinelmer Life Sciences (UK) Ltd & Anor

The claims of the patent are invalid for obviousness. It was technically obvious at the priority date to use a CCD camera for SPTs and to address colour quenching by using a red-shifted phosphor. The inventive concept was part of the common general knowledge and/or obvious in light of prior art. Entitlement and infringement did not arise as the patent is invalid.

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; Part 20 Claimant: PerkinElmer LAS, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked for invalidity (obviousness)
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Novelty, Entitlement, Infringement, Scintillation Proximity Test, CCD Imaging, Colour Quenching
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Obviousness Novelty Entitlement Infringement Scintillation Proximity Test +2 more

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 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

PerkinElmer LAS, Inc.

Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No 1,007,971 is invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step (obviousness)
  2. 2 Whether PerkinElmer is entitled to the patent as successor in title
  3. 3 Whether the patent is infringed by PerkinElmer's products

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the patent are invalid for obviousness. It was technically obvious at the priority date to use a CCD camera for SPTs and to address colour quenching by using a red-shifted phosphor. The inventive concept was part of the common general knowledge and/or obvious in light of prior art. Entitlement and infringement did not arise as the patent is invalid.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked for invalidity (obviousness)

Orders

  • Patent revoked
  • If valid, patent would have been infringed by PerkinElmer