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 >> Immersion Corporation (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o26807 (13 September 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o26807.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o26807

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


Immersion Corporation [2007] UKIntelP o26807 (13 September 2007)

For the whole decision click here: o26807

Patent decision

BL number
O/268/07
Concerning rights in
GB 0514055.3
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
13 September 2007
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Immersion Corporation
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The claims before the hearing officer related to a handheld communications device with provision for the user to store a correlation of information about the sources of received signals with distinct haptic effects to be output. Following Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, the hearing officer accepted that (as in Raytheon [2007] EWHC 1230) the contribution of the invention was a combination of aspects - (i) the use of a haptic effect in a communications device to indicate a feature of the communicated data and (ii) the customisation by the user of the haptic effect. He held that (i) related solely to the presentation of information and (ii) related solely to a computer program, and did not accept the applicant’s argument from the successful Aerotel appeal that (ii) provided a new physical hardware or combination of hardware. Even if (i) was not to be regarded as part of the contribution, the contribution would still relate solely to a computer program. The contribution therefore failed the third step of the Aerotel/Macrossan test and it was not necessary to consider whether it was technical in nature. The application was refused.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o26807.html