4 Sept 1990
IMPROVER CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. RAYMOND INSDUSTIAL AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- IMPROVER CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. RAYMOND INSDUSTIAL AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV193/1989
The helical spring is an essential integer of the claimed invention as the patentee, by clear specification language and context, limited the monopoly to that component; the elastomeric rod is not a mere insubstantial variant or equivalent that falls within the claim as construed, therefore the alleged infringing device does not infringe; the Epilady patent is valid (no obviousness over Fischer at priority date).