zeeeodid的部落格

The applicant in the lawsuit of LG Phillips Co Ltd v Tatung (UK) Ltd and Others [2006], control a UK exclusive rights for ascension a straight panel showcase tool inside a two-part housing, which could be unified into products specified as laptops or free of character computer monitors. The rights was mainly directed at LCD displays for laptops. The claimant brought dealings resistant cardinal defendants in the government grant county hearing. It was alleged that the defendants had infringed the patent finished the construction of a drawn electrical circuit television television. The defendants denied infringement, and in actuality counterclaimed for the state of the unobstructed in give somebody the third degree on the confines of anticipation, noticeability and scantiness.

The applier consequently sought-after to have one of the exclusive rights claims amended in command to get together factor of the defendant's grip for annulment. The applier argued that their performance would backfire if the courts did not let the planned amendments. However, the defendants submitted that by allowing the amendments to bring place, auxiliary entity would be other to the patent contrary to s.76 of the Patents Act 1977 ("the Act").

The primary planned rectification expected the abolition of the syllable structure of the ability to the front part lodging. In the untested patent, here was no try out on how the power would be attached. The applicant submitted that by devising this amendment no auxiliary issue would be more to the patent because in at lowest possible one incarnation of the invention, the idea that "the ability should not be glued to the facade housing" had been unveiled in the merchandise specification.

The 2nd proposed rectification expected that the fastenings would be astern the prostrate panel demonstration. This dimension appeared in a drawing of one of the chosen embodiments of the invention, but was otherwise unknown. In the inspired patent, no raise of this part having imaginative value had been ready-made.

The magistrate command that the amendments should not be allowed as they well-grooved added concern different to s.76. He that's why unemployed the assertion for intrusion and allowed the covering for revocation on the crushed that the applier had conceded that if the amendments were not made, their achievement would backfire. The claimants then appealed to the court of attractiveness.

Their ask was fired for the stalking reasons:

§ If the specification disclosed outlined sub-classes of the overall creative concept, then it should be impending to revise downward to one of those sub-classes. However, in this case the amendments which were sought were single disclosed in a limited context and were not unveiled as having any ingenious worth. Introducing them into a maintain would have meagre them of that context, significance that the amendments were not expedient to be else to the contention. This is a function called 'intermediate generalisation'. This is evidenced more than clearly in the 2nd correction the applier applied for. The 2d amendment proved to add an other unfamiliar point which had solitary been shown in a nontextual matter. There was no indication that the dimension had any originative significance, and the amendment did not need to join any opposite features displayed in that illustration. This is an fabulous instance of intermediate generalisation, which is not allowable.

§ It was held that the Act was desire to prevent the property owner of a official document from amending a averment to such as an level that they were efficaciously desire to treasure a antithetic design to the one in the artistic submission. Therefore, provided the excogitation in the revised maintain was unveiled in the resourceful request when read as a whole, it would not anger s.76 of the Act. Where the amendment enclosed a disclaimer which narrowed the claim, it was command that a particular disclaimer did not 'add matter' if it was inserted into a assert to go around an 'accidental' anticipation, but it did 'add matter' if it was inserted to abstain from a 'non-accidental' expectancy. An 'accidental' expectancy is one in which a revealing relating to a faraway industrial piece of ground is made. It can besides grow where on earth the speciality thing haunted does not minister to to figure out the tribulation self-addressed by the rights in cross-examine. In the travel case in question, the eldest correction either sought to add a dimension to the official document which was not self-addressed specifically anywhere before, or it wanted to add a repudiation for products which had all the features of the asseveration recoup that the mental faculty was preset to the frontmost built-up. If the early analysis was correct, past the amendment would be deemed to add new ingenious importance to the rights and would cause offence the head on accumulation business. If the 2d investigating was correct, then the amendment was efficaciously a disclaimer incorporated for the aim of preventing the charge from extending to an point of antecedent art. It would be unrewarding to initiate that the anterior art was in a far-off mechanical piece of ground.

The sort out was thus true to have disallowed some amendments.

If you could do with additional records introduction us at . Visit or

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not stock a oecumenical or full substance of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it represent ratified direction. It is fated sole to underline common issues. Specialist jural suggestion should e'er be sought in part to selective luck.