• Send us a message

    Fill in our form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible

    Please enter name
    Please enter your telephone number
    Please enter your email address
    Please let us know which of offices would most convenient for you?
    Please enter the details of your enquiry
    Please enter the verification code
    Send us a message
  • Services for you
  • Services for business

Combination of Small Steps Provides Patent Validity

Air travellers will be familiar with the X-ray scanners used as part of the security measures in airports, and the international market for such systems is massive.

One of the leading names in the industry is Rapiscan, whose devices are widely used in many areas of security screening.

When a competitor launched a mobile (covert) screening device, based on 'photon backscatter imaging', Rapiscan alleged that the patent the other company had been given for its system was invalid on the basis of 'obviousness'. Obviousness is the name for the situation in which the development being patented is a clear next-step application of an existing technology. Where this is the case and there is no inventive concept involved, a patent will not be valid.

The judge in the High Court held that the combination of the core X-ray technology with a relative motion sensor was certainly a non-obvious step and, when combined with the design features to enable the screening to be done covertly, the patented system was sufficiently non-obvious to justify patent protection.

The case attracted much coverage in the legal press because both sides had instructed expert witnesses and, in each case, given them a brief that would make it difficult for them not to produce a report which supported 'their side's' point of view, despite the fact that expert witnesses are bound to the court to present an unbiased opinion.

One factor that the Court regarded as evidence of the 'non-obviousness' of the application was that several years had passed between a published paper regarding the technology used and the development of the new system. The judge considered that if the development was an obvious step, it would have taken place much earlier.

For intellectual property (IP)-based businesses, the case has two lessons. The first is that a relatively small innovative step may be sufficient to enable the IP that step represents to be protected. The second is that appointing an expert should always be done in a way that allows a 'balanced' view to be taken of the probable outcome.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.