Technetix BV & Ors v Teleste Ltd
Decision date: 29 January 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] EWHC 126 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Technetix sued for infringement of UK Patent No. 2 382 473 B for cable TV tap units; Teleste counterclaimed for revocation. The court construed claim 1, found the amended patent lacked novelty over Rocci (and lacked novelty or inventive step over Toner) so would remain invalid, held Teleste’s Tap Bank was not literally within claim 1 but would fall within it under the doctrine of equivalents (Improver), and (assuming a Formstein-style defence exists) Teleste would be entitled to that defence; no exclusive licence to the Second Claimant was found for the period alleged.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
On the proper construction, the phrase requiring a directional coupler to be “separable from and insertable into the base unit independent of the group of signal outputs” is satisfied by separability/insertability independent of the identified group (i.e. at least one group) rather than requiring independence from every group; the inventive core of the claim can be a narrow integer and equivalence (Improver) is to be assessed by whether a variant exploits that inventive core in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. The amended patent was invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step on the prior art found.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The court indicated it could not rule out future adoption of a Formstein-style defence into English law and treated consideration of such a defence as appropriate where pleaded; it also suggested that features such as the physical location of circuitry may be peripheral to an inventive core and not determinative of equivalence. The court reiterated that claim construction should be informed by common general knowledge without an absolute rule against adopting constructions that expose a claim to invalidity.