Compactgtl Ltd v Velocys Plc & Ors
References to 'residence time' in the patents were an obvious mistake and should be amended to 'contact time'; the patents are novel and non-obvious over Hunter and Schanke; CompactGTL's catalyst structure and process infringe the relevant claims.
- Parties
- Defendant: CompactGTL Limited; Defendant: Velocys PLC; Claimant: Velocys Inc; Defendant: Battelle Memorial Institute
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claims for amendment and infringement allowed; patents held valid and infringed.
- Legal Topics
- Patent Amendment, Patent Infringement, Novelty, Obviousness, Claim Construction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CompactGTL Limited
Defendant
Velocys PLC
Defendant
Velocys Inc
Claimant
Battelle Memorial Institute
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether references to 'residence time' in the patents are an obvious mistake and should be amended to 'contact time'
- 2 Novelty of claim 1 of 509 over Hunter
- 3 Novelty of claim 1 of 508 over Schanke
Ratio Decidendi
References to 'residence time' in the patents were an obvious mistake and should be amended to 'contact time'; the patents are novel and non-obvious over Hunter and Schanke; CompactGTL's catalyst structure and process infringe the relevant claims.
Court Disposition
Claims for amendment and infringement allowed; patents held valid and infringed.
Orders
- Velocys' first amendment application allowed.
- Velocys' second amendment application refused as unnecessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment