By Mark Ballard for The
Register.
This article has been reproduced with permission.
Say, for example, you have invented (with the humble resources
at hand in your garden shed) a propeller-powered levitation device
that carries out its functions through a mount placed on a baseball
hat, and proudly registered a patent.
Any Silicon Valley ruffian who fancies your invention for his
corporation could intimidate you with a confusing imitation of your
own patent and a lorry-load of lawyers.
If, however, you slipped the UK patent office two hundred quid,
they would look into it for you and let you know whether you've
stepped on someone's toes or some tyrant is trying it on.
Of course, it is more likely to be the case of mere
misunderstanding or disagreement over the true meaning that should
be derived from the arcane language used by lawyers and patent
officers, as was the likely case in the three opinions the patent
office has just
delivered.
Patent Office examiner John Rowlatt deftly disarmed a running
patent dispute with the observation that Mr Jeremy David Lenighan's
patent for a shower screen that attaches to a bath will only be
infringed by Heritage Bathroom's Showerbath screen if it is able to
swing out over the bath.
In another case, Danish patent holder Novo Nordisk A/S sought to
discover whether its patent for cartidge syringes was novel and
inventive compared to a host of other similarly registered patents
in the US and Europe.
After a lengthy exposition on the matter, Rebecca Villis, Patent
Office examiner, concluded that just two of 20 claims made by Novo
Nordisk about its syringe patent were trite. This would likely give
the firm every confidence in defending its inventor's dignity
against any chancers who might steal its thunder.
Finally, Mr Alan John Mackinder, who was concerned that his
patent for spotting speeding cars using a satellite and grassing
the misdemeanour to the fuzz, was infringed by Blackspot
Interactive's Road Angel Navigator.
The Patent Office's Eamonn Quirk examined the case and formed
the opinion that Mr Mackinder had no claim for infringement,
probably saving him a lot of wasted time and money fighting the
claim in court.
© The Register
2006
