Storage Computer Corp & Anor v Hitachi Data Systems Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1155 (30 July 2003)

Storage Computer Corp & Anor v Hitachi Data Systems Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1155 (30 July 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find claims 1 and 2 of the patent obvious in light of the prior art and the common general knowledge. The evidence supported the conclusion that the characterising features of claim 1 did not involve an inventive step over the acknowledged prior art, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1155
Parties
Appellant: Storage Computer Corporation; Appellant: Storage Computer UK Limited; Respondent: Hitachi Data Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Obviousness, Inventive Step, Prior Art
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Obviousness Inventive Step Prior Art

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Storage Computer Corporation

Appellant

Storage Computer UK Limited

Appellant

Hitachi Data Systems Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and 2 of EP 0294287 are invalid for obviousness under the Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the patent was infringed by Hitachi Data Systems Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find claims 1 and 2 of the patent obvious in light of the prior art and the common general knowledge. The evidence supported the conclusion that the characterising features of claim 1 did not involve an inventive step over the acknowledged prior art, and the concepts in IBM 1 were part of the common general knowledge. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed