Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 1971 |
| Court | House of Lords |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
151 cases
-
Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S
...techniques were routine which were still very much at an experimental stage in 1988. The words of Lord Diplock in Technograph Printed Circuits v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) [1972] RPC 346 at 362 are particularly apposite: “The cross-examination of the respondents' expert followed with cu......
- Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd
- Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA and another
-
Peng Lian Trading Co v Contour Optik Inc and Others
...technician. What this means was elaborated as follows by Lord Reid in Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley Electronics Ltd [1972] RPC 346 at “To whom must the invention be obvious? It is not disputed that the hypothetical addressee is a skilled technician who is well acquainte......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
-
SEB v De'Longhi Appeal
...rather than by cross appeal, but this was a matter of form rather than substance. [2] British Westinghouse [1910] 27 RPC 230, Technograph [1972] RPC 346 [3] Sabaf [2002] EWCA Civ 976, Panduit [2003] FSR 8, Wheatley [2001]RPC 7 The content of this article is intended to provide a general gui......
-
Changes to inventive step in Australia - a view from the devil's advocate
...document was likely to have been ascertained. The following quote actually comes from the UK decision in Technograph v Mills and Rockley [1972] RPC 346: "[T]here may be documents which, although available, would never be looked at by anyone making such a search as our hypothetical addressee......
-
English Court Of Appeal 'Widens The Target' For Arrow Declarations (And Hands Control To Defendants)
...of any future patents, of the sort warned against in Technograph Printed Circuits Limited v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd [1972] RPC 346. In relation to point (i), the Court of Appeal noted that while a party seeking to avoid patent infringement would like a declaration to render ev......
4 books & journal articles
-
THE FUTURE OF INVENTIVE STEP IN PATENT LAW
...in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd[2002] HCA 59; (2003) 56 IPR 135 at [42]–[49]. 6[2005] UKHL 59; [2006] RPC 10 at [25]. 7[1972] RPC 346 at 355. This was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Peng Lian Trading Co v Contour Optik Inc[2003] 2 SLR(R) 560 at [18]. 8 The corolla......
-
INTERPRETING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATUTES IN SINGAPORE
...Holdings Ltd[2008] 1 SLR(R) 335 at [38]. 24First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd[2008] 1 SLR(R) 335 at [41]. 25[1971] FSR 188. 26[1971] FSR 188 at 193. In this case, the House of Lords had to interpret the words “having regard to what was known or used” in ss 32(1......
-
Intellectual Property Law
...confusing. Hence, it expressed preference for Lord Reid”s view in Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd[1972] RPC 346 that there should be a distinction between the two. Lord Reid justified this view by confining the knowledge of the person skilled in the art ......
-
Intellectual Property Law
...only if it is obvious to do so: see Lord Reid”s judgment in Technograph Printed Circuits Limited v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Limited[1972] RPC 346 at 355 (‘a mosaic which can be put together by an unimaginative man with no inventive capacity’). 16.155 On appeal, Tan J upheld the trial j......