REACTEC LTD AGAINST CUROTEC TEAM LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_77 (31 July 2020)

REACTEC LTD AGAINST CUROTEC TEAM LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_77 (31 July 2020)

The court held that, on a purposive construction, the patent claims covered both HAV and WBV monitoring, as supported by the specification and the defined meaning of 'hand held tool.' The skilled team would have understood the patent to encompass both types of vibration monitoring. The defender's arguments to restrict the claims to HAV only were rejected. The evidence of the pursuer's skilled witnesses was preferred over that of the defender's, and the construction advanced by the pursuer was adopted. The court also addressed the admissibility and weight of evidence from ordinary and skilled witnesses, sustaining objections to inadmissible opinion evidence from the defender's ordinary...

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_77
Parties
Pursuer: Reactec Limited; Defender: Curotec Team Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (patent Infringement and Revocation) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Construction, Validity, and Infringement)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer on construction; patent construed to cover both HAV and WBV monitoring; objections to certain evidence sustained.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Revocation, Inventive Step, Obviousness, Construction of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Revocation Inventive Step Obviousness Construction of Patent 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reactec Limited

Pursuer

Curotec Team Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (patent Infringement and Revocation) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Construction, Validity, and Infringement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's products (Curo Plus and Q2) infringe the pursuer's patent
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of inventive step/obviousness
  3. 3 Proper construction of key terms in the patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on a purposive construction, the patent claims covered both HAV and WBV monitoring, as supported by the specification and the defined meaning of 'hand held tool.' The skilled team would have understood the patent to encompass both types of vibration monitoring. The defender's arguments to restrict the claims to HAV only were rejected. The evidence of the pursuer's skilled witnesses was preferred over that of the defender's, and the construction advanced by the pursuer was adopted. The court also addressed the admissibility and weight of evidence from ordinary and skilled witnesses, sustaining objections to inadmissible opinion evidence from the defender's ordinary...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer on construction; patent construed to cover both HAV and WBV monitoring; objections to certain evidence sustained.

Orders

  • Objections to inadmissible opinion evidence from Mr Jones sustained.
  • Patent construed in favour of the pursuer's interpretation.