Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors

Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors

Cranway's patent is invalid because it is anticipated by prior art (Rabbit Jack's), is obvious, and claims excluded subject matter (a method of doing business and a computer program as such). Even if valid, claim 1 would have been infringed by the defendants' product, but claim 5 would not.

Parties
Claimant: Cranway Limited; Defendant: Playtech Limited; Defendant: Playtech Cyprus Limited; Defendant: Playtech Software Limited; Defendant: Techplay Marketing Limited t/a Playtech Marketing Division; Defendant: PTVB Management Limited; Defendant: Tote Credit Limited; Defendant: Totesport NV; Defendant: Totesport Alderney Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment
Outcome
Patent declared invalid; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Novelty, Excluded Subject Matter, Claim Construction
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Novelty Excluded Subject Matter Claim Construction

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cranway Limited

Claimant

Playtech Limited

Defendant

Playtech Cyprus Limited

Defendant

Playtech Software Limited

Defendant

Techplay Marketing Limited t/a Playtech Marketing Division

Defendant

PTVB Management Limited

Defendant

Tote Credit Limited

Defendant

Totesport NV

Defendant

Totesport Alderney Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cranway's patent EP 0625760B1 is valid
  2. 2 Whether the patent is anticipated by prior art
  3. 3 Whether the patent is obvious

Ratio Decidendi

Cranway's patent is invalid because it is anticipated by prior art (Rabbit Jack's), is obvious, and claims excluded subject matter (a method of doing business and a computer program as such). Even if valid, claim 1 would have been infringed by the defendants' product, but claim 5 would not.

Court Disposition

Patent declared invalid; claim dismissed.