Compactgtl Ltd vVelocys Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 2951 (Pat) (22 September 2014)

Compactgtl Ltd vVelocys Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 2951 (Pat) (22 September 2014)

The references to 'residence time' in the claims and specification of the patents were an obvious mistake, and the skilled person would immediately appreciate that 'contact time' was intended. The amendments to correct this mistake were allowed. As amended, the patents were found valid for sufficiency, novelty, and inventive step. CompactGTL did not infringe the patents as amended.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2951 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: CompactGTL Limited; Defendant: Velocys PLC; Defendant: Velocys Inc; Defendant: Battelle Memorial Institute
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Amendments allowed; patents held valid as amended; no infringement by CompactGTL.
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Obvious Mistake Correction, Sufficiency, Novelty, Obviousness, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Amendment Obvious Mistake Correction Sufficiency Novelty Obviousness Infringement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CompactGTL Limited

Claimant

Velocys PLC

Defendant

Velocys Inc

Defendant

Battelle Memorial Institute

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to 'residence time' in the patents are an obvious mistake and should be corrected to 'contact time'
  2. 2 Whether the patents as amended are valid for sufficiency, novelty, and inventive step
  3. 3 Whether CompactGTL infringed the patents as amended

Ratio Decidendi

The references to 'residence time' in the claims and specification of the patents were an obvious mistake, and the skilled person would immediately appreciate that 'contact time' was intended. The amendments to correct this mistake were allowed. As amended, the patents were found valid for sufficiency, novelty, and inventive step. CompactGTL did not infringe the patents as amended.

Court Disposition

Amendments allowed; patents held valid as amended; no infringement by CompactGTL.

Orders

  • Amendments to both patents allowed to correct 'residence time' to 'contact time'.
  • Declarations of validity of the patents as amended.