Russell Finex Ltd v Telsonic AG

Russell Finex Ltd v Telsonic AG

The Spiral and Single Bent Rod designs do not infringe claim 1 of the patent, either literally or under purposive construction, as the claim language and specification indicate intentional limitations that exclude these designs. The skilled reader would not conclude with reasonable confidence that the patentee intended to cover these embodiments.

Parties
Claimant: Russell Finex Limited; Defendant: Telsonic AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration of non-infringement granted
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Claim Construction, Purposive Construction, File Wrapper Estoppel
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Claim Construction Purposive Construction File Wrapper Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Finex Limited

Claimant

Telsonic AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Spiral and Single Bent Rod designs infringe claim 1 of EP (UK) 0652810
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'circular rod' and 'rod-type resonators' in claim 1
  3. 3 Role of reference numerals in claim construction

Ratio Decidendi

The Spiral and Single Bent Rod designs do not infringe claim 1 of the patent, either literally or under purposive construction, as the claim language and specification indicate intentional limitations that exclude these designs. The skilled reader would not conclude with reasonable confidence that the patentee intended to cover these embodiments.

Court Disposition

Declaration of non-infringement granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the Spiral and Single Bent Rod designs do not infringe claim 1 of EP (UK) 0652810