Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> Loadhog Limited v Polymer Logistics BV (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o19510 (18 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o19510.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o19510
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Loadhog Limited v Polymer Logistics BV [2010] UKIntelP o19510 (18 June 2010)
For the whole decision click here: o19510
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/195/10
- Concerning rights in
- GB 2440699 B
- Hearing Officer
- Mr S Probert
- Decision date
- 18 June 2010
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Loadhog Limited v Polymer Logistics BV
- Provisions discussed
- Sections 72, 2, 3, 76(2), 14(3)
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Inventive step, Novelty, Revocation, Sufficiency
- Related Decisions
- [2009] UKIntelP o27409, [2010] UKIntelP o03110
Summary
The patent concerns a combination dolly/pallet device for transporting goods in the logistics industry. The device is capable of operating as a wheeled dolly or a pallet depending on the position of its retractable skids. The skids are formed with openings through which the wheels extend in the dolly condition.
The claimant sought revocation of the patent on the grounds of novelty, inventive step, insufficiency and added matter. The claimant’s own product had been demonstrated to the Duke of York before the priority date of the patent. The Hearing Officer followed the Folding Attic Stairs case in which a similar prior use based on a demonstration was alleged.
The Hearing Officer considered that the strongest attack against the patent was based on two earlier US patent publications, but, following Windsurfing/Pozzoli, the difference between them and the inventive concept did not constitute an obvious step. The insufficiency and added matter attacks also failed. The patent remains in force. Costs were deferred, but with an indication that the Hearing Officer proposed to apply the published scale.