Patent revocation claims blown out of water by English High Court
The English High Court has ruled that Saab Seaeye, a manufacturer of underwater vehicles, infringed a patent covering a device used to clear underwater mines.
Atlas Elektronik, the owner of UK patent numbers 2,482,576B and 2,483,861B, convinced Mr Justice George Mann that Saab’s Ballista product was infringing.
Saab had initiated the dispute by seeking the revocation of both patents on the grounds that they were obvious and on grounds of insufficiency. Atlas counterclaimed that Saab had infringed the patents.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) issued the ‘576 patent, called “A neutrally buoyant underwater weapon clearance appliance”, to Atlas in 2012.
The ‘861 patent, called “Attachment device assemblies and systems using name”, was also granted in 2012. Both patents cover the use of a nail gun to attach an explosive device to an underwater mine.
In May, Atlas applied to amend claims 1, 8 and 13 asserted in the ‘576 patent. Saab opposed this request.
The IPO responded to Atlas’s request in June stating that further amendments were needed in order for them to be approved. No further correspondence between the parties has been published on the IPO website since.
Mann allowed Atlas to defend the proposed amended patent claims during the trial.
While Saab succeeded in persuading Mann that claims one and two of the ‘576 patent were obvious, it failed to persuade the court that the ‘861 patent was invalid.
On Wednesday, November 4, Mann ruled that the Ballista product had infringed the ‘861 patent and also concluded that the product had infringed claim nine of the ‘576 patent.
But he said that claims 1 and 2 of the ‘576 patent were revoked and the remainder of the revocation claims had failed. Claims 5, 9 and 10 of the '576 patent and claims 1, 3, 7, and 15 asserted in the '861 patent were deemed to be valid by Mann.
And on infringement: “It is not disputed that Ballista infringes claims one and three of the ‘861 patent ... [and] Ballista, in my view, infringes claim nine [asserted in patent ‘576].”
