Catnick Components v Hill and Smith, (1982) R.P.C. 183 (H.L.)
Citation:Catnick Components v Hill and Smith, (1982) R.P.C. 183 (H.L.)
Rule of thumb:Do patent applications & certificates have to be absolutely exact to be enforceable against a party who adapts the idea slightly? No, patent applications & certificates only have to be generally in the right area, and small adjustments to the ideas are still caught. This is called ‘pith and marrow’.
Judgment:
When a person has a patent, and there is a new invention, the wording of the patent does not have to literally cover this. The purpose and spirit of the patent is the most important thing to be taken account, rather than the exact lettering of the patent, and this is called pith and marrow.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘A patent specification should be given a purposive construction rather than a purely literal one derived from applying to it the kind of meticulous verbal analysis in which lawyers are too often tempted by their training to indulge.... both parties to this appeal have tended to treat `textual infringement' and infringement of the ‘pith and marrow’ of an invention as if they were separate causes of action, the existence of the former to be determined as a matter of construction only and of the latter upon some broader principle of colourable invasion. There is, in my view, no such dichotomy; there is but a single cause of action and to treat it otherwise, particularly in cases like that which is the subject of the instant appeal, is liable to lead to confusion’, Lord Diplock
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.