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!



BAILII [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 >> Cormon Limited v Norsk Hydro a.s. (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o08505 (30 March 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o08505.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o08505, [2005] UKIntelP o8505

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Cormon Limited v Norsk Hydro a.s. [2005] UKIntelP o08505 (30 March 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o08505

Patent decision

BL number
O/085/05
Concerning rights in
EP(UK) 0483578 B1
Hearing Officer
Mr S N Dennehey
Decision date
30 March 2005
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Cormon Limited v Norsk Hydro a.s.
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 section 71
Keywords
Claim construction, Infringement
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The patent relates to a method and apparatus for detecting the amount of particles flowing in a fluid stream based on the principle that the electrical resistance of an erosion element placed in the stream will change as a result of its gradual erosion by the particles. C sought a declaration of non-infringement in respect of its own CMEP 026 and CMEP 024 erosion probes. D questioned whether full particulars of the infringing act had been provided by C.

The hearing officer found that the technical data sheets provided by C did give a clear and unambiguous description on which to decide whether Cs probes fell within the scope of the patent. He went on to find that Cs probes did not infringe the method and apparatus claims. Ds argument that the supply of multiple probes modified or configured in a partiuclar way might lead to contributory infringement of the patent was rejected by the hearing officer.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o08505.html