Improver v Remington

Improver v Remington

Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Product Limited" [1990] F.S.R. 181" is a leading United Kingdom case on patent infringement, particularly in relation to how to establish what specifically a patent covers.

The Catnic Decision

The earlier case of Catnic Components Ltd. v Hill & Smith Ltd., Lord Diplock had established the principle that patents were to be read in a "purposive" manner. The question to be answered in establishing infringement, as formulated by Lord Diplock, was a complex, multi-part enquiry.

The Improver Questions

In the "Improver" case, Lord Hoffmann, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, reformulated the test as a series of three questions to establish whether a variant (alleged infringing article) infringes the literal meaning of the claims of a patent. The variant will not infringe if any of the following are true:
* The variant has a material effect on the way the invention works.
* The fact that the variant has no material effect on the way the invention works would not have been obvious to an expert in the field.
* That an expert in the field would have taken from the language used in the patent that strict compliance with the primary meaning was an essential requirement of the invention.

Facts & findings of the case

In the "Improver" case, the patent covered a depilatory device having a curved "helical spring" driven by a motor. The spring when rotated gripped hairs between its coils and plucked them from the skin. The alleged infringement replaced the spring with a rubber rod having slits in its surface. The question was whether the slitted rubber rod was "a helical spring". The judge answered the three questions as follows: (i) the change to a rubber rod had no material effect on the way the invention worked; and (ii) it would have been obvious to an expert that the rubber rod would work in the same way; but (iii) the expert would have understood from the patent that the patentee meant to confine his claim to a "helical spring", in its primary meaning and not in a wide generic sense. For this last reason, the rubber rod did not infringe.

Continued relevance

These so-called "Improver questions" were relied on throughout the 1990s and early 2000s by the United Kingdom Courts, but in 2004 their continued relevance was called into question by the same judge who had formulated them, now Lord Hoffmann, in the case of Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel:

"These questions, which the Court of Appeal in Wheatly v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 133, 142 dubbed "the Protocol questions" have been used by English courts for the past fifteen years as a framework for deciding whether equivalents fall within the scope of the claims. On the whole, the judges appear to have been comfortable with the results, although some of the cases have exposed the limitations of the method. When speaking of the "Catnic principle" it is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, the principle of purposive construction which I have said gives effect to the requirements of the Protocol, and on the other hand, the guidelines for applying that principle to equivalents, which are encapsulated in the Protocol questions. The former is the bedrock of patent construction, universally applicable. The latter are only guidelines, more useful in some cases than in others. I am bound to say that the cases show a tendency for counsel to treat the Protocol questions as legal rules rather than guides which will in appropriate cases help to decide what the skilled man would have understood the patentee to mean." [cite BAILII
country=UK
litigants=Kirin-Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd.
court=UKHL
year=2004
num=46
date=2004-10-21
]

The current position, therefore, is that the House of Lords has held that the principle of purposive construction is entirely in accordance with the Protocol to Article 69, but that the Improveer questions may not represent the best approach for dealing with every infringement issue. See Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel.

References


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно сделать НИР?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel — Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. [cite BAILII country=UK litigants=Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. court=UKHL year=2004 num=46 date=2004 10 21] is a decision by the House of Lords of England and Wales. The judgment… …   Wikipedia

  • Improve — means to make something better. It may also refer to:Improver* Bread improver * Improver Corporation: Improver v Remington, a 1990 United Kingdom patent infringement law court caseImproved* Improved clinch knot, a knot * Most Improved Player, a… …   Wikipedia

  • List of patent case law — This list contains an alphabetical listing of historically significant or leading case law in the area of patent law. A * Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan s Application (UK, 2006) * Ariad v. Lilly (US, 2006) * Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers… …   Wikipedia

  • Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith Ltd. — Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill Smith Ltd. (1982) R.P.C. 183 is a leading House of Lords decision on the nature of a patent and in particular the methods of claim construction.BackgroundCatnic Components had a patent for a lintel, used to provide… …   Wikipedia

  • Doctrine of equivalents — This article discusses the patent doctrine. For the trademark doctrine regarding translation of foreign words, see Doctrine of foreign equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world s patent systems that allows a… …   Wikipedia

  • European Patent Convention — European patent law …   Wikipedia

  • Enforcement of European patents — European patents are granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) under the legal provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, European patents are enforced at a national level, i.e. on a per country basis. Under EPC Article|64|2,… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”