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!
 |
[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 >> Manitowoc Beverage Systems Limited & Messrs. Scott (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o01914 (15 January 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o01914.html Cite as: [2014] UKIntelP o01914, [2014] UKIntelP o1914 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
Revocation of the patent was sought on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step with respect to various documents and the alleged prior use of the invention before the priority date of the patent. The invention relates to a system for cooling and dispensing beverages in which the beverage is cooled en route to a dispensing font and the font is cooled to create a decorative iced effect. The key feature of the invention is the use of a single tank of sub-zero coolant to cool the beer and to ice the font, providing an improvement over the two tank, two coolant systems employed previously. The hearing officer found that the invention set out in claim 1 of the patent was novel and involved an inventive step over the prior art. On the allegation of prior use, the defendants admitted that a prototype cooler had been handed over to a third party for testing before the priority date of the patent but could not provide any documentary evidence of an obligation of confidentiality on the part of the third party. Despite this, the hearing officer concluded that the fact that the cooler had been riveted shut and security sealed, and that it remained the defendants’ property for the duration of the testing, the third party would have known that it was not at liberty to open up the apparatus to inspect its inner workings. The hearing officer concluded that the invention had not been made available to the public before the priority date of the patent. The claimant’s case for revocation failed.
