Secretary of State for Education and Skills v Frontline Technology Ltd

Claims 1 and 2 are obvious and lack inventive step in view of the Kingshurst prior use; claim 7 is not obvious in view of any cited prior art or intervening use and disclosures.

Parties: Claimant: Secretary of State for Education and Skills; Defendant: Frontline Technology Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 17 June 2004
Procedural Posture: Patent Revocation / Final Judgment
Outcome: Claims 1 and 2 revoked for lack of inventive step; claim 7 upheld as inventive.
Legal Topics: Patent Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Priority Date, Intervening Use

Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Inventive Step Priority Date Intervening Use

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 13 Party arguments 2

Parties

Secretary of State for Education and Skills

Claimant

Frontline Technology Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether claims 1 and 2 of European patent (UK) No. 0.664.061 are novel and inventive over prior art and common general knowledge
2 Whether claim 7 is novel and inventive
3 Whether claims 1 and 2 are entitled to the earlier priority date

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 2 are obvious and lack inventive step in view of the Kingshurst prior use; claim 7 is not obvious in view of any cited prior art or intervening use and disclosures.

Court Disposition

Claims 1 and 2 revoked for lack of inventive step; claim 7 upheld as inventive.

Orders

Claims 1 and 2 of European patent (UK) No. 0.664.061 are revoked.
Claim 7 is upheld and remains valid.