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 £5, 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 >> Swansea Imports Limited v Carver Technology Limited (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o17004 (10 June 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o17004.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o17004 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o17004
Summary
The two patents cover different aspects of a water heater for use in caravans. Heaters incorporating the patented technology had been sold successfully in the UK for a number of years and are installed in many caravans in current use. However, following a takeover of the patentee company in 2000, the new owners had ceased all production and had substituted their own design of heater which does not fall within the scope of the patents.
Swansea Imports had approached the patentees for permission to produce and sell heaters and spare parts according to the withdrawn design, but were refused. They subsequently applied to the Comptroller for compulsory licenses under the patents on the grounds that the demand for products necessary to replace or repair worn out heaters in existing use was being met neither by the patentees new design of heater nor by the limited stocks of the old (patented) design which remained available but at an increased price.
It was decided that although dealers were charging a premium on the price for the remaining stocks of patented heaters, and that this was probably having an effect on demand, the applicants had not discharged their burden to prove that this amounted to a failure to meet demand on reasonable terms. The applications for compulsory licenses were therefore refused. Research Corporationss (Carboplatin) Patent [1990] RPC 663 applied in that price and demand are related and if the price being charged by the patentee or its licensee is reasonable and the demand at that price is being fully met, it is irrelevant to say that the demand would be greater at a lower price.
