• iNTELLECTUAL pROPERTY rIGHTS 

England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions

Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors

Cranway claim that their patent for on-line gambling (EP 0625760B1) has been infringed by Playtech and the Tote. It is not necessary to distinguish between the various Playtech corporate entities or between the various Tote corporate entities. The invention relates to an interactive, real time, realistic "home" computer gaming system using general purpose computers. Aspects of the invention concern auditing and security to ensure fairness for players and prevent players defeating the outcome of a game; fast, efficient communication to enable reliable, low cost, real time, realistic operation; accounting; and enabling players to play a variety of games. Playtech and the Tote deny infringement and contend that the patent is invalid for three reasons namely:

i) The claimed invention is not new;

ii) The claimed invention is obvious;

iii) The claimed invention is not in fact an invention.

Whether means are suitable for putting an invention into effect must be a purely objective test. But whether they are intended to put an invention into effect cannot be wholly objective. Only human beings can have intentions, although their intentions may be attributed to other legal persons, according to rules of attribution. Thus this limb of the test must depend on the subjective intention of someone. A supplier of essential means might reasonably be supposed to know what the intention of his immediate counter-party is. But it would be a far stronger thing to expect him to discern the intention of a person far down the supply chain. Moreover, at the time of the supplier's supply of the essential means the person who ultimately forms the intention to use the means to put the invention into effect may not be ascertainable and he may not have formed that intention.

The patent is invalid.

• Civil

England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

London Borough of Brent v S

In this case an application was filed by the local authority relating to proposed trip by the Defendant S to Pakistan to look for his family. S is a 17-year-old Afghan national. He was accommodated by the local authority on his arrival in the UK in February 2007 as an unaccompanied minor. He had lived in foster placements. He had discretionary leave to remain in the UK until 31 December 2009. In late 2006 S was on a visit to an aunt in Afghanistan where his family lived when the Taliban killed his father. For his safety, family members arranged for his travel to Pakistan, and then on to the UK. Efforts by the local authority to trace them through the Red Cross have proved unsuccessful. S wishes to travel to Pakistan to trace his family whom he believes are refugees living there. The local authority considered such a trip to be unsafe, and not in S's best interests. When S did not agree with their view and refused to hand over his passport, the present proceedings were started.

The proposed journey is one which has some risks because of the violence in Pakistan. However, they are outweighed in this instance because of the powerful personal factors in S's case. Hence, the injunction against him was lifted and his passport was ordered to be returned to him.