Vanserum Vision AB v. SICK IVP AB, Stockholm District Court, Stockholm, Sweden, 5 February 2010, Cases No. T 1966-07 and T 22033-07 (joint cases)
The Stockholm District Court dismissed an invalidity claim raised by Vanserum Vision AB (‘Vanserum’) against the Swedish patent 501 650 in relation to patent claim 3, but approved Vanserum’s action in relation to patent claims 2 and 8. The ‘650’ patent was granted for a device, used within the sawmilling- and carpentry industry. The invention detects defects in wood through a specific combination of line-shaped light sources.
The Stockholm District Court dismissed an invalidity claim raised by Vanserum Vision AB (‘Vanserum’) against the Swedish patent 501 650 in relation to patent claim 3, but approved Vanserum’s action in relation to patent claims 2 and 8. The ‘650’ patent was granted for a device, used within the sawmilling- and carpentry industry. The invention detects defects in wood through a specific combination of line-shaped light sources.
==========
Several attacks were made on the patent. Apart from arguing that claims 2, 3 and 8 lacked novelty and inventive step, it was also asserted that claim 2 comprised a subject matter not appearing in the application as filed, the latter which the Court approved. As regards claim 3, Vanserum argued that the skilled person would not be able to carry out the invention, as the description was not sufficiently clear. The Court ruled that the skilled person would realize, based on common general knowledge, how the invention is supposed to be carried out. After an examination of the prior art documents, the Court in addition found patent claim 3 inventive. Patent claim 8 however was not found inventive.
SICK IVP AB (“SICK”) had lodged a counter-claim against Vanserum, asserting that Vanserum’s invention ‘ESC-300’ infringed the patent. The Court found based on its view on claim 3 that Vanserum infringed the patent claim, and issued a prohibition by penalty of fine against Vanserum and awarded SICK damages.
In the same proceedings Vanserum also made an invalidity claim against the Swedish part of the European patent 1 432 961, “Method and arrangement in a measuring system”, granted for an invention also used within the sawmilling- and carpentry industry. The Court found the patent invalid and thus dismissed SICK’s counter-claim that Vanserum had infringed the patent.
Because it was considered that both parties had won some and lost some in the proceedings, the Court made use of the exception from the principal rule that the loosing party shall compensate the winning for his legal fees. It was thus ordered each party to bear its own legal expenses.
Read the judgment (in Swedish) here.
Comments