Georgetown Rail Equipment Co v Rail Radar Inc 2018 FC 70 Fothergill J
2,572,082 / 2,766,249
In Georgetown Rail v Rail Radar Fothergill J held that Georgetown’s 082 and 249 patents were
valid and infringed by Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Rail Radar Inc was the first named defendant, but it
did not participate in the proceeding, its status is unknown, and Georgetown did not seek relief
against it.) The decision, including the main validity attack, based on obviousness, turned entirely on the facts.
The patents related to an automated system and method for inspecting railroad track using a laser,
camera, to collect information about the railroad track, plus a processor to analyze the
information according to a specified algorithm [16], [31]. The individual components were
known, and there was no suggestion of inventive ingenuity in adapting those components to
implement the algorithm. Fothergill J accepted the patents were inventive “only in respect of
their algorithms” [129]. This may be an interesting example when compared with CIPO’s
approach to computer-implemented inventions.
No comments:
Post a Comment