Patents: interactive image screens

In a dispute concerning two patents with respect to interactive television screens, the question arose whether the patented inventions of Smart Technologies UCL had lead to valid patent rights and whether CTouch Europe BV had infringed those rights. CTouch claimed that Smart Technologies had not clearly substantiated its infringement claims. Accordingly, they were unable to defend itself properly and the claim should be rejected. The district court held that the claim was sufficiently substantiated after all. Moreover, CTouch’s reply was so detailed and extensive, that the court held that the interest of the complaint was not justified. It appeared that they had well been able to sufficiently prepare themselves with respect to the content; in the end the infringement claims were rejected with respect to one patent because the apparatus of CTouch did not utilise two features from the conclusion of 1-5 of Smart Technologies’ patent .

With respect to the other invoked patent, both parties were requested to provide additional information concerning what should be considered the closest prior art. That is the technology that was available to the skilled person active in the field of the invention at the application date of the patent. This is relevant to subsequently determine whether the invention, in the light of the prior art, is new and sufficiently inventive. CTouch argued that they had done nothing else than to simply apply the technique known in the prior art and that they therefore could not have infringed the patent. To be continued!

Moïra Truijens