Patents: Infringement and Revocation
Sapey v Trianco Redfyre Ltd. Pumfrey J 31 July 2000
I was instructed by a well-known and long established manufacturer of domestic central hearing equipment which carried on business in Sheffield.
An inventor in Norwich had designed and obtained a patent for a boiler that used a heat exchanger as a baffle. My client had launched a new range of boilers based on similar technology. The inventor claimed that my client's range infringed his patent and offered a licence. The Sheffield company sought my advice.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction - Protocols I advised my clients to explore settlement, ADR and a trial before the Comptroller. All of those initiatives were rejected and a claim was issued. I advised my client to consult an expert and we eventually hit on the industry expert. On the strength of his advice that the technology claimed in the patent was not new I counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on the ground of anticipation and obviousness.
I worked closely with the expert in preparing the defendant's evidence. I suggested ways in which he could clarify and in some cases amplify the main points of his evidence. I also reviewed the statements of the witnesses of fact. I requested and attended a site visit to a house in a small Norfolk village which appeared to anticipate the invention by some time. I worked very hard on trial preparation particularly on my skeleton argument.
After several interim applications by the claimant the case came on before Mr Justice Pumfrey who found that the only claim that would have been infringed was invalid and the claims that were valid had not been infringed.
A transcript of Mr Justice Pumfrey's decision appears on the Ipsfacto website.
