Verathon Medical v Aircraft Medical [2011] ScotCS CSOH_19 (01 February 2011)

Verathon Medical v Aircraft Medical [2011] ScotCS CSOH_19 (01 February 2011)

The court found that Aircraft Medical's McGrath Series 5 laryngoscope did not infringe the claims of Verathon Medical's patent as properly construed, and that the relevant claims of the patent were invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness) in light of the prior art. The court also considered and refused the proposed amendments to the patent, finding they did not cure the defects of validity or infringement.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_19
Parties
Pursuer: Verathon Medical (Canada) ULC; Defender: Aircraft Medical Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation / Opinion After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Pursuer's claims refused; counterclaim for revocation of patent upheld
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Patent Construction, Obviousness, Novelty, Amendment of Patent
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Patent Construction Obviousness Novelty Amendment of Patent

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verathon Medical (Canada) ULC

Pursuer

Aircraft Medical Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation / Opinion After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Aircraft Medical Limited infringed Verathon Medical's European Patent (UK) 1 307 131 B1 by manufacture and sale of the McGrath Series 5 laryngoscope
  2. 2 Whether the patent is invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step (obviousness)
  3. 3 Whether the patent should be amended under section 75 of the Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Aircraft Medical's McGrath Series 5 laryngoscope did not infringe the claims of Verathon Medical's patent as properly construed, and that the relevant claims of the patent were invalid for lack of inventive step (obviousness) in light of the prior art. The court also considered and refused the proposed amendments to the patent, finding they did not cure the defects of validity or infringement.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's claims refused; counterclaim for revocation of patent upheld

Orders

  • Declarator of non-infringement granted in favour of defender
  • Patent revoked for lack of inventive step