Beloit Technology Inc. v Valmet Paper Machinery Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1995 |
| Date | 12 May 1995 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
Patent Court of the Chancery Division
Patents - interpretation of statute - obscure provisions
It helped no one for parliamentary draftsmen to rewrite matter in a treaty or convention, at least in the field of intellectual property, which was to be implemented in the United Kingdom because if the basic document was obscure or less than complete, whatever he did to try to clarify it in other words simply caused extra complications and extra costs.
Mr Justice Jacob so stated in the Patent Court of the Chancery Division on April 28 when granting a petition by Valmet Paper Machinery Inc for the revocation of European Patent (UK) No 0334899 in the name of Beloit Corporation, concerned with the dryer section of high-speed machines for making newsprint.
HIS LORDSHIP said it was a great pity that the Patent Act 1977, section 6(1) in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meter-Tech LLC and Another v British Gas Trading Ltd
...157. Thirdly, it is vital to have in mind the requirements for matter to be part of the common general knowledge. In Beloit Technologies Inc v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc [1997] RPC 489 at pages 494–495, Aldous LJ put it in this way: "It has never been easy to differentiate between common ge......
-
Mölnlycke Health Care AB v Brightwake Ltd (Trading as Advancis Medical)
...as a matter of construction has to be construed in such a way as to be novel over Brassington (see above and see also Beloit v Valmet [1995] RPC 705 at 720 and Ultraframe v Eurocell [2005] RPC 36 at para 47). After all a skilled reader conversant with patent practice would know that the cha......
-
Verathon Medical V. Aircraft Medical
...leads to the result that the prior art referred to in the specification destroys the novelty of the claims. In Beloit Technologies Inc. [1995] RPC 705, Jacob J (at p.720) stated: "I believe Article 69 of the EPC does not legitimately allow courts to construe claims using the prior art eithe......
-
Force India Formula 1 Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD and Others
...v Ford Motor Co Ltd (The Times, 8 March 1993); Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd [1994] EMLR 134; Valeo Vision SA v Flexible Lamps Ltd [1995] RPC 205; Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804 at 807 (Laws J, as he then was); Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers ......
-
Management and Enforcement
...288−91 [Vaver, “Civil Liability”]; Vaver, “What Is a Trade Secret?” above note 334 at 36–39; Valeo Vision S.A. v. Flexible Lamps Ltd. , [1995] R.P.C. 205 at 227–28 (Ch.); Cadbury , above note 131 (headstart damages); A.-G. v. Blake , [2001] 1 A.C. 268, [2000] UKHL 45 [ Blake ]. 453 Cadbury ......