UK: Experts Told How Not To Approach Obviousness In X-Ray Scanning Patent Case

American Science & Engineering Inc's (AS&E's) patent to a covert X-ray van has been found to be valid (not obvious) by Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court of England & Wales, following a challenge made by Rapiscan Systems Limited (Rapsican). Rapiscan had infringed the patent.

Mr Justice Arnold's decision of 11 April 2011 in American Science & Engineering Inc v Rapiscan Systems Ltd [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat) is available here.

Background

AS&E brought proceedings against Rapiscan for infringement of its European Patent (UK) number 1,558,947, entitled "X-ray backscatter mobile inspection van" (the "Patent"). Rapiscan conceded that if the Patent was valid then it had infringed it; however Rapiscan asserted that the patent was invalid for lack of inventive step.

Common general knowledge and the skilled team

It was agreed that the patent was addressed to a team engaged in developing X-ray scanning systems, which would be headed by a physicist skilled at designing X-ray imaging systems.

At the relevant time (2002), there was only a small community of manufacturers. The USA being the leading national market and the market driver in terms of development, the global security scanning market was US-centric: a skilled person in the field working in the Western world would be interested in developments in that market and aware of the interest in obtaining mobile detection systems.

The 'common general knowledge' included an understanding of the physics of X-rays, as well as of scanning and security systems in existence at the time and used, for example, in airports and ports. Much of the judgment (paragraphs 9-64) is dedicated to explaining the technology.

The Patent

The Patent claimed "an inspection system for inspecting an object comprising an enclosed conveyance" with a number of features, including the following:

  1. "the detector module is contained entirely within the body of the enclosed conveyance while the conveyance is in motion during the course of inspection"; and
  2. "characterised in that the system further comprises a relative motion sensor for generating a relative motion signal based on a relative motion of the enclosed conveyance and the inspected object".

In practice, the advantage of the claimed arrangement was that it enabled a mobile x-ray scanner to be used for covert imaging (i) with the vehicle moving past the target - in "drive-by" mode, (ii) with the vehicle stationary as the target moves past it - in "drive-past" mode, and also (iii) with the vehicle overtaking the target while both are in motion.

Was the Patent obvious?

By the trial, the substantive issues between the parties had narrowed to whether the claims of the Patent, and in particular integers (f) and (g) were obvious in light of one piece of prior art, "Swift". Swift  was a paper published in the proceedings of a well-attended industry conference.  It described a prototype of AS&E's marketed 'MobileSearch' system.

Claim feature (f)

Swift stated that the closet doors of the described system were "opened and secured" during scanning. This, said Arnold J, meant that claim feature (f) was not disclosed by Swift.

Was claim feature (f) nevertheless obvious? In the judge's view it would be sufficient to bring Swift within this aspect of the claim to re-design it to operate with the doors shut. In effect, this would involve changing the system described in Swift into a covert system.

However, on the evidence, the judge thought this depended upon hindsight. A 'throwaway' suggestion to such effect in another article in a trade journal did not address the practicalities of doing so. For example, one would need not simply to shut the doors, but to replace them with non-attenuating material in order to obtain a useful image.

Claim feature (g)

As regards feature (g), Swift did not require a relative motion sensor because it operated at two fixed speeds. Rapsican contended that it would be obvious to incorporate one into the system described by Swift i.e. for use in a drive past mode, but the judge disagreed. In doing so he referred to a number of arguments made by AS&E, including that:

  • Swift made no mention of the possibility of a drive-past mode; in fact it taught away;
  • there were no mobile drive-past backscatter systems in operation at the relevant time;
  • the Swift system did not lend itself 'naturally' to such a mode; and
  • Rapsican's case amounted to cherry-picking one particular feature of a system that was within the common general knowledge (Mobile VACIS) and then combining that with Swift while ignoring both a key aspect of Mobile VACIS and a proposal in Swift.

The judge therefore concluded that converting Swift into a drive-past system was only obvious with hindsight.

Features (f) and (g) combined

Further, even if the steps from Swift to features (f) and (g) were individually obvious, Arnold J considered that the combination was not. There were plenty of obvious avenues for development of Swift, some of which were flagged in the paper itself, but changing the whole method of operation of the system in order to reach the claimed invention was far removed from these, and it was only with hindsight that the necessary changes could be seen as relatively simple.

Secondary evidence

Arnold J noted that he found "modest support" for his conclusion that claim 1 was not obvious in the 'secondary' evidence. In particular, nobody had come up with the claimed invention in the six years following Swift; and the evidence of Rapiscan's response to the commercial success of AS&E's commercial vehicles which implement the invention also supported this finding.

Short shrift was given to Rapiscan's arguments that the six-year interval between the publication of Swift and AS&E's patent filing was explained by AS&E having patent protection for relevant systems (i.e. reducing the incentive for third parties to develop such systems).

The judge also disagreed with Rapiscan's contention that the burden lay on AS&E to refute this. It was "plain" that the burden lay upon Rapiscan to prove the existence and relevance of facts they relied on; and the burden had not been met.

Expert evidence - asking the right question

Arnold J was critical of the instructions given to both experts. Both had been instructed to consider the person skilled in the art and the common general knowledge, then to consider the prior art relied upon by Rapiscan, and only then to consider the Patent. But there were, nevertheless, differences in the way the parties' respective approaches had been structured.

AS&E's expert was asked to consider obvious developments of the prior art before being shown the Patent. This resulted in criticism that he had failed to address whether the differences between Swift and the Patent constituted steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art.

In contrast, Rapiscan's expert was only asked to consider obviousness after being shown the Patent. While this avoided the difficulty of AS&E's approach, Rapiscan's approach resulted in its expert appearing not to have understood the importance of trying to avoid hindsight.

Comment: how should expert witnesses be instructed to proceed in an obviousness challenge?

Previously, in Medimmune v Novartis ([2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat)), Arnold J noted that the correct approach for the lawyers instructing the experts (in that case) to take was to ask the expert to consider, first, the prior art, then the priority documents and then the patent. This enabled the expert to form and express his opinions on the prior art without knowledge of the invention, and on the priority documents without knowledge of the patent.

In the present case, which was concerned just with an obviousness challenge, the approaches taken by the parties' representatives when instructing their respective expert witnesses would appear to have been consistent with the judge's earlier guidance. Nevertheless, both approaches were criticised without a solution being spelt out by the judge. Rapiscan's approach, of asking its expert only to consider the question of obviousness after being shown the patent, appeared to receive the greater criticism.

So how should expert witnesses be asked to proceed when retained in the context of an obviousness challenge?

The correct question for the expert to be asked to consider in the context of an obviousness dispute is whether, viewed without any knowledge of the claimed invention, the differences constituted steps which would be obvious. The expert must understand the importance of trying to avoid hindsight.

AS&E's approach, of asking its expert to consider obvious developments before showing him the patent, had the "advantage" of enabling the expert to consider obvious developments of the prior art free from knowledge of the patent, and so would seem the better course, but this alone is not enough. It would seem advisable for the expert then to be asked to consider whether the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention constituted steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art, whether or not they occurred, in fact, to him.

In more complex disputes, where issues of priority, added matter, sufficiency and/or multiple challenges to validity arise (or are contemplated), very careful consideration must be given to the order in which documents are first put to an expert witness.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions