Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

All three EMGS patents (019, 887, 640) are invalid for obviousness over the prior art. The application of CSEM techniques to hydrocarbon exploration was obvious to the skilled addressee (a team including a CSEM expert), as shown by the Chave paper and other references. The inventive concepts were not novel or inventive steps. The amendments proposed do not save validity. The patents are therefore revoked.

Parties
Claimant: Schlumberger Holdings Limited; Defendant: Electromagnetic Geoservices AS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Patents revoked for invalidity (obviousness); amendments disallowed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Anticipation, Sufficiency, Amendment of Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Anticipation Sufficiency Amendment of Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schlumberger Holdings Limited

Claimant

Electromagnetic Geoservices AS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three EMGS patents (019, 887, 640) are invalid for obviousness and/or anticipation over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the patents are insufficient or not enabled
  3. 3 Who is the appropriate skilled addressee for the patents

Ratio Decidendi

All three EMGS patents (019, 887, 640) are invalid for obviousness over the prior art. The application of CSEM techniques to hydrocarbon exploration was obvious to the skilled addressee (a team including a CSEM expert), as shown by the Chave paper and other references. The inventive concepts were not novel or inventive steps. The amendments proposed do not save validity. The patents are therefore revoked.

Court Disposition

Patents revoked for invalidity (obviousness); amendments disallowed.

Orders

  • All three patents (019, 887, 640) revoked.
  • Proposed amendments to claims disallowed.