Cloud Cycle Limited v Verifi LLC & Anor

Cloud Cycle Limited v Verifi LLC & Anor

The Cloud Cycle System does not infringe claim 1 of EP (UK) 1 720 689 under the doctrine of equivalents because it does not achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the inventive concept of the claim. The Cloud Cycle System does not evaluate the stability of speed and pressure...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Cloud Cycle Limited; Defendant: Verifi LLC; Defendant: GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (doctrine of Equivalents) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Declaration of non-infringement granted to Cloud Cycle Limited.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Doctrine of Equivalents, Interpretation of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Doctrine of Equivalents Interpretation of Patent Claims

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cloud Cycle Limited

Claimant

Verifi LLC

Defendant

GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (doctrine of Equivalents) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the inventive concept of claim 1 of EP (UK) 1 720 689?
  2. 2 Does the Cloud Cycle System achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the inventive concept of claim 1 under the doctrine of equivalents?
  3. 3 Would it be obvious to the skilled person, reading EP 689 at the priority date, knowing that the Cloud Cycle System achieves substantially the same result as the inventive concept of claim 1, that it does so in substantially the same way?

Ratio Decidendi

The Cloud Cycle System does not infringe claim 1 of EP (UK) 1 720 689 under the doctrine of equivalents because it does not achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the inventive concept of the claim. The Cloud Cycle System does not evaluate the stability of speed and pressure measurements before using them for slump calculation, nor does it require stability over a full drum rotation. Instead, it uses continuous smoothing and averaging, and all measurements are used regardless of stability. Therefore, the answer to the first Actavis question is 'no', and there is no infringement.

Court Disposition

Declaration of non-infringement granted to Cloud Cycle Limited.

Orders

  • Declaration of non-infringement of claim 1 of EP (UK) 1 720 689 by Cloud Cycle System.