Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2009] EWHC 58 (Ch) (19 January 2009)

Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2009] EWHC 58 (Ch) (19 January 2009)

The patents in suit are invalid for obviousness in light of the prior art, as the inventive concept—using the presence or absence of a refracted wave in CSEM surveys as a discriminator for hydrocarbons—would have been obvious to a team including a CSEM expert at the priority date. The skilled addressee must include a CSEM expert, as the patent cannot be worked without such expertise. The proposed amendments to the claims do not save the patents from invalidity.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 58 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Schlumberger Holdings Limited; Defendant: Electromagnetic Geoservices AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Validity Action / High Court First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patents revoked for invalidity (obviousness); amendments refused as they do not result in valid claims.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Amendment of Patent Claims, Skilled Addressee, Oil Exploration Technology
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Amendment of Patent Claims Skilled Addressee Oil Exploration Technology

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schlumberger Holdings Limited

Claimant

Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Validity Action / High Court First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents in suit (EP 1 256 019 B1, 887, 640) are invalid for anticipation and/or obviousness
  2. 2 Who is the skilled addressee for the purposes of construction and sufficiency
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments to the patents are allowable

Ratio Decidendi

The patents in suit are invalid for obviousness in light of the prior art, as the inventive concept—using the presence or absence of a refracted wave in CSEM surveys as a discriminator for hydrocarbons—would have been obvious to a team including a CSEM expert at the priority date. The skilled addressee must include a CSEM expert, as the patent cannot be worked without such expertise. The proposed amendments to the claims do not save the patents from invalidity.

Court Disposition

Patents revoked for invalidity (obviousness); amendments refused as they do not result in valid claims.

Orders

  • Revocation of EP 1 256 019 B1, 887, and 640 patents
  • Refusal of proposed amendments to claims