Swarovski-Optik KG v. (1) Leica Camera AG (2) Leica Camera Limited, Patents Court, Chancery Division, High Court, London, UK, 10 May 2013, [2013] EWHC 1227 (Pat)

The Patents Court held that Swarovski’s patent relating to sighting telescopes and riflescopes was valid and had been infringed by Leica.

Swarovski was the owner of EP (UK) 1 746 451 which related to sighting telescopes and riflescopes with a zoom factor greater than 4. Swarovski alleged that Leica had infringed the patent by the supply of riflescopes in its Magnus range. Leica counterclaimed that the patent was invalid because it was either not novel or obvious in light of the common general knowledge and the prior art as at the priority date. Leica also alleged that it was invalid due to added matter and insufficiency.

Mr Justice Vos held that the IOR riflescope sold before the priority date did not clearly and unambiguously disclose all the features of the claims of the patent and so the patent survived Leica’s novelty attack. Mr Justice Vos rejected Leica’s obviousness attacks based on common general knowledge and the four separate prior art citations relied upon by Leica. Mr Justice Vos also rejected Leica’s added matter and insufficiency attacks.

Mr Justice Vos held that Leica’s riflescopes infringed Swarovski’s patent
http://www.eplawpatentblog.com...i-optik-v-leica.html

My understanding is that Leica won the patent case in Germany.
Interesting how different courts see things differently.

I assume that this is also why the Zeiss V8 scopes are not for sale in the UK but are in other parts of Europe.