Priming The Pump: A Interrogation Of Control

Rummaging through BAILII this afternoon the IPKat has but unearthed a fresh patent appeal decision, Agilent Technologies Federal Republic of Germany GmbH v Waters Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 987, inwards which the Court of Appeal (Ward, Jacob too Neuberger LJJ) upheld the ruling of trial approximate Mr Justice Pumfrey today.

Agilent, who owned a patent for a heart too somebody too command system, sued Waters for infringement. The courtroom had previously flora that an before automatic version of Waters' device infringed the patent, which was valid. Waters hence produced a manual version of the device, which was the dependent area of this action. The heart too somebody too command organization of the manual device operated inwards ‘manual mode’, amongst the period of time charge per unit of measurement too stroke length existence independently selected yesteryear the operator. There was no automatic alter of attain too the manual device no longer maintained whatever predetermined human relationship betwixt stroke length too period of time charge per unit of measurement other than that imposed yesteryear the device's maximum too minimum possible frequencies too stroke lengths. The sole inquiry before Pumfrey J was whether claim ane of Agilent's patent covered the manual device. He said it did not, hence Agilent appealed, maintaining that the characterising component subdivision of claim ane provided:

‘Control Means (a) coupled to the get way (b) for adjusting the stroke length of the pistons … (c) inwards reply to the desired period of time charge per unit of measurement of the liquid delivered … (d) amongst the stroke book … existence decreased when the period of time charge per unit of measurement is decreased too vice versa, (e) such that pulsations inwards the period of time of liquid delivered to the output of the pumping apparatus are reduced’,

and that those words covered Waters' manual device every bit a affair of evidently language.

The Court of Appeal upheld Pumfrey J's interpretation of the patent, adding that patent claims should hold upward construed every bit read yesteryear the notional skilled human being inwards context. In claim ane it was the ‘control means’ too non the operator which was to adapt the stroke length ‘in reply to the desired period of time rate’. The operator was non business office of the command way too the reply called for yesteryear characteristic (c) of the claim was non introduce inwards Waters' device.

concurs amongst this conclusion. Indeed, he thinks it would convey been hard to accomplish whatever other conclusion too wishes that cases similar this didn't croak appealed quite hence oftentimes ...

More on pumps here, here and here
Pump jokes here and here (not real funny unless you're into cars)