BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Cunningham Covers Limited v Airmat Safety Products Limited (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o30204 (30 September 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o30204.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o30204 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o30204
Summary
The patent related to safety apparatus for use in building construction, inflatable to cushion a falling worker, comprising a plurality of chambers (which could be a series of individual bags) 'coupled together by valves controllable to interconnect the chambers such that the bag means can be adjusted to a desired plan shape'. C sought a declaration in respect of a product in which inflatable bags were connected in series by pipes between openings in the chambers to build up a desired plan shape, with openings not in use being disconnected and sealed by bungs. C put in issue the validity of the patent, citing a patent specification PA1 for novelty and inventive step and a further specification PA2 in combination with PA1 to show lack of inventive step against a subsidiary claim. C also put in evidence in evidence a known swimming pool inflatable X but did not formally plead it for validity, apparently relying on it to show that it was using a known type of interconnection.
The attack on validity failed: the hearing officer (i) distinguished PA1 as relating to an air-tight bouncing structure rather than a cushion, (ii) did not accept that it would be an obvious modification, (iii) did not accept that PA1 and PA2 could be combined to show obviousness, and (iv) doubted the relevance of X in the absence of further argument. Having regard to the types of valve exemplified in the patent, the hearing officer construed the patent as including C's interconnection, and declined to grant a declaration. Referring to apparent hints in C's case that the patent was preventing the public from using something already available to it, the hearing officer noted the absence of any alternative pleading to that effect in the event of an adverse finding on infringement and did not consider the point any further.
