Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Sony Computer V Supergreen, Inc. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Syannil Vie
    Smith Kline sued Tryco for patent infringement, claiming its patent for a compound that fights parasites in animals also included the compound Albendazole used in Tryco's veterinary drug. The court found no infringement because Smith Kline's patent did not mention Albendazole anywhere and extrinsic evidence did not prove it was inherently included. While both compounds fight parasites, Smith Kline did not prove they operate in substantially the same way as required for equivalence. The court therefore ruled in favor of Tryco, finding no infringement of Smith Kline's patent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sony Computer V Supergreen, Inc. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Syannil Vie
    49 views1 page
    Smith Kline sued Tryco for patent infringement, claiming its patent for a compound that fights parasites in animals also included the compound Albendazole used in Tryco's veterinary drug. The court found no infringement because Smith Kline's patent did not mention Albendazole anywhere and extrinsic evidence did not prove it was inherently included. While both compounds fight parasites, Smith Kline did not prove they operate in substantially the same way as required for equivalence. The court therefore ruled in favor of Tryco, finding no infringement of Smith Kline's patent.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Sony Computer v Supergreen, Inc. (2007)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Smith Kline sued Tryco for patent infringement, claiming its patent for a compound that fights parasites in animals also included the compound Albendazole used in Tryco's veterinary drug. The court found no infringement because Smith Kline's patent did not mention Albendazole anywhere and extrinsic evidence did not prove it was inherently included. While both compounds fight parasites, Smith Kline did not prove they operate in substantially the same way as required for equivalence. The court therefore ruled in favor of Tryco, finding no infringement of Smith Kline's patent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    Sony Computer V Supergreen, Inc. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Syannil Vie
    Smith Kline sued Tryco for patent infringement, claiming its patent for a compound that fights parasites in animals also included the compound Albendazole used in Tryco's veterinary drug. The court found no infringement because Smith Kline's patent did not mention Albendazole anywhere and extrinsic evidence did not prove it was inherently included. While both compounds fight parasites, Smith Kline did not prove they operate in substantially the same way as required for equivalence. The court therefore ruled in favor of Tryco, finding no infringement of Smith Kline's patent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Smith Kline v.

    CA

    Doctrine: When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may
    not claim anything beyond them.

    Facts: Petitioner Smith Kline Beckman Corporation (Smith) was granted Letters Patent No. 14561 over
    an invented compound entitled “Methods and Compositions for Producing Biphasic Parasiticide Activity
    Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbamate.” Such compound is claimed to be an active
    ingredient in fighting various parasites in certain types of domestic and livestock animals.

    Meanwhile, respondent Tryco Pharma (Tryco) sells veterinary products including a drug
    Impregon which contains Albendazole as an active ingredient which fights against parasites in animals.

    Smith then filed an action against respondent Tryco for patent infringement claiming that the
    patent granted to them includes said Albendazole and urges the Court to apply the doctrine of
    equivalents. In their defense, Tryco alleges that Letters Patent No. 14561 granted to Smith does not
    include Albendazole for nowhere is such word found in the patent.

    ISSUE: WON there was patent infringement committed by Tryco.

    HELD:

    No, there was no patent infringement. The burden of proof to substantiate a charge for patent
    infringement rests on the plaintiff. In the case at bar, petitioner’s evidence consists primarily of its
    Letters Patent No. 14561, and the testimony of Dr. Orinion, its general manager, by which it sought to
    show that its patent for the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2- benzimidazole carbamate also covers the
    substance Albendazole. From a reading of the 9 claims of Letters Patent No. 14561 in relation to the
    other portions thereof, no mention is made of the compound Albendazole.

    When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may
    not claim anything beyond them. And so are the courts bound which may not add to or detract from the
    claims matters not expressed or necessarily implied, nor may they enlarge the patent beyond the scope
    of that which the inventor claimed and the patent office allowed, even if the patentee may have been
    entitled to something more than the words it had chosen would include. The language of the letter patent
    fails to yield anything at all regarding Albendazole and no extrinsic evidence had been adduced to prove
    that Albendazole inheres in Smith’s patent in spite of its omission therefrom or that the meaning of the
    claims of the patent embraces the same.

    The doctrine of equivalents provides that an infringement also takes place when a device
    appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, although with some
    modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to
    achieve substantially the same result. Yet again, a scrutiny of Smith’s evidence fails to convince the
    Court of the substantial sameness of Smith’s patented compound and Albendazole. While both
    compounds have the effect of neutralizing parasites in animals, identity of result does not amount to
    infringement of patent unless Albendazole operates in substantially the same way or by substantially
    the same means as the patented compound, even though it performs the same function and achieves the
    same result. In other words, the principle or mode of operation must be the same or substantially the
    same. The doctrine of equivalents thus requires satisfaction of the function-means-and-result test, the
    patentee having the burden to show that all three components of such equivalency test are met. Smith
    failed to explain how Albendazole is in every essential detail identical to its compound. Nothing more is
    asserted and accordingly substantiated regarding the method or means by which Albendazole weeds out
    parasites in animals.

    You might also like