Court dismisses appeal in patent application dispute

Introduction

The High Court recently upheld a decision to refuse a patent application submitted by Nicholas Klemz, who sought to patent an apparatus claimed to generate force. The case, heard in the Patents Court, revolved around the application of established physical laws to the proposed invention.

Background

Nicholas Klemz, the appellant, filed a patent application for an invention titled 'An apparatus for generating a force.' The application was initially published in April 2021, but an examination report in August 2023 raised objections under the Patents Act 1977. The objections included the invention's lack of industrial application, insufficient enablement, and unclear claims.

The Hearing

Mr Klemz, representing himself, appealed the decision of the Hearing Officer, Dr Laura Starrs, who had refused the application on grounds including the invention's inconsistency with the principles of conservation of momentum and Newton's laws of motion. The appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Hacon, with Anna Edwards-Stuart KC representing the Comptroller-General of Patents.

Legal Principles

The court applied the principles established in Blacklight Power Inc. v The Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] EWHC 2763 (Pat), which dictate that an invention must not operate contrary to well-established physical laws to be considered for patentability. The court also considered whether there was a reasonable prospect that the invention might be found patentable if fully investigated at trial.

Arguments and Evidence

Mr Klemz argued that his invention, which proposed to use electromagnetic forces to generate thrust without expelling reaction mass, was consistent with the laws of electromagnetism. However, the court found that the invention appeared to violate Newton's third law and the principle of conservation of momentum, as it purported to generate force internally without an external force acting upon it.

Experimental Evidence

Videos of experiments conducted by Mr Klemz were presented, showing a laser dot's movement as evidence of the apparatus generating force. The court found the experiments inconclusive, noting that the laser dot did not return to its original position when the device was turned off, casting doubt on the claimed thrust generation.

Decision

The court upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, concluding that the invention lacked industrial application and was not sufficiently disclosed to enable a skilled person to perform it. The court found no reasonable prospect that further investigation would alter this conclusion.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the application should not proceed to grant. The decision underscores the importance of aligning patent applications with established scientific principles.

Learn More

For more information on patents and industrial applicability, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Copyright & permissions