American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd

American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd

The claimed invention was not obvious in light of Swift because neither the concealment of detectors within the vehicle body nor the use of a relative motion sensor for covert, drive-past operation was disclosed or suggested in Swift. The combination of these features required inventive insight, and the prior art taught away from covert and drive-past operation. The absence of such systems in the six years following Swift and the commercial success of AS&E's ZBV vehicles provided modest support for non-obviousness.

Parties
Claimant: American Science & Engineering Inc.; Defendant: Rapiscan Systems Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for infringement succeeds; counterclaim for revocation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Backscatter X Ray Imaging, Mobile Inspection Systems
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Backscatter X Ray Imaging Mobile Inspection Systems

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

American Science & Engineering Inc.

Claimant

Rapiscan Systems Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rapiscan infringed AS&E's patent if valid
  2. 2 Whether AS&E's patent claims are obvious in light of prior art (Swift)
  3. 3 Whether the patent claims are valid

Ratio Decidendi

The claimed invention was not obvious in light of Swift because neither the concealment of detectors within the vehicle body nor the use of a relative motion sensor for covert, drive-past operation was disclosed or suggested in Swift. The combination of these features required inventive insight, and the prior art taught away from covert and drive-past operation. The absence of such systems in the six years following Swift and the commercial success of AS&E's ZBV vehicles provided modest support for non-obviousness.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement succeeds; counterclaim for revocation dismissed.

Orders

  • Rapiscan's counterclaim for revocation of the patent is dismissed.
  • AS&E's patent claims are upheld as valid.