Trunature Ltd v Scotnet (1974) Ltd & Others [2006] ScotCS CSOH_114 (21 July 2006)

The whole of the defenders' placer is a 'presser plate' within the meaning of Claim 1 of the 301 Patent. The pre- and post-tensioners are not 'other thread guidance or deflection means' as they serve no useful function in the knitting process. The Turbo 98 machine therefore infringes Claim 1 (and thus Claim 5) of the 301 Patent.

Citation: [2006] ScotCS CSOH_114
Parties: Pursuer: Trunature Limited; Defender: Scotnet (1974) Limited and Others
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 21 July 2006
Procedural Posture: Intellectual Property Infringement / Preliminary Proof Before Answer, Restricted to Issues of Infringement
Outcome: Defenders' third plea-in-law repelled; finding of infringement against defenders on preliminary proof before answer.
Legal Topics: Patent Infringement, Patent Construction, Mechanical Devices, Interpretation of Claims

Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Patent Construction Mechanical Devices Interpretation of Claims

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 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

Trunature Limited

Pursuer

Scotnet (1974) Limited and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement / Preliminary Proof Before Answer, Restricted to Issues of Infringement

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defenders' Turbo 98 machine infringes Claims 1 and 5 of the pursuers' 301 Patent
2 Proper construction of Claim 1 of the 301 Patent, specifically the meaning of 'presser plate' and 'other thread guidance or deflection means'

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defenders' third plea-in-law repelled; finding of infringement against defenders on preliminary proof before answer.

Orders

Repel defenders' third plea-in-law.