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!



BAILII [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 >> Martin Lister (Patent) [2011] UKIntelP o10011 (10 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o10011.html
Cite as: [2011] UKIntelP o10011

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Martin Lister [2011] UKIntelP o10011 (10 March 2011)

For the whole decision click here: o10011

Patent decision

BL number
O/100/11
Concerning rights in
GB0403997.0, GB0405154.6 and GB0413927.5
Hearing Officer
Dr J E Porter
Decision date
10 March 2011
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Martin Lister
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 1(1)(c) and section 14(3)
Keywords
Industrial application, Sufficiency
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The three applications each relate to an invention concerned with the idea of arranging sets of magnets so that magnetic repulsion acts between the magnets in a particular way which is said to produce motion. In the first application, the motion is used to generate a current to create a “Perpetual Battery”. In the second application, the motion is used to drives the bristles of a “Perpetual Toothbrush”. In the third application, the motion is used to power a “Perpetual Torch”.

The Hearing Officer noted that there was no suggestion of any energy input into the devices, either to start the motion or to maintain it. He held that, even if he could accept that the arrangement of magnets could result in some motion, the inventions as described took no account of the fact that energy losses must occur and so there must be an input of energy in order for the device to run perpetually.

He was satisfied that the inventions were alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, and so were incapable of industrial application. There was also not a sufficient disclosure which would enable a skilled person to perform the inventions as claimed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o10011.html