Court decision regarding Pergo "falling rod" patent.
Viken, Sweden - May 13, 2013
Välinge is pleased that the Swedish Nullification Action of Pergo "Falling Rod" Patent resulted in a very limited interpretation of the claim.
The second instance (Svea Hovrätt) limited the claim by introducing a very strict interpretation of the “rod”. This limitation resulted in that the second instance set-aside the decision of the first instance (Stockholms Tingsrätt) to nullify the so-called "Falling Rod" patent.
The court decided that a "locking rod", according to the patent, is longitudinal and to its outer-shape closely connected body. Furthermore, the court decided that this specific shape of the "locking rod" is the only distinguishing feature between the closest prior art and the claimed subject matter.
Moreover, the court states that the patent implies that the locking rod is a part itself and if a spring is used, the spring is not an integrated part of the "locking rod" itself.
The spring part of e.g. a 5G tongue is an integrated part of the tongue, thus the 5G tongue should not be a “locking rod” within the meaning of the disputed patent.
Fig. 1b below from the disputed Swedish patent 526 688 discloses the only embodiment of the "locking rod" (40) shown in the drawings of the patent.“I am pleased that the court decided that a rod is a rod and nothing else. This means that all our commercial systems are outside the Swedish Pergo claim”
says Niclas Håkansson, Välinge CEO.
This decision of Svea Hovrätt can be appealed.
Applications related to the "falling rod" locking system have only been filed in Sweden and Germany.
For further information, please contact:
Mobile: +46 (0)706 238 764