News

Armour Succeeds in Revocation of ‘A-Bus’ Patent in Europe (25/2/2010)

Armour Group Plc (“Armour”) is pleased to announce that it has succeeded with its revocation proceedings at the European Patent Office (“EPO”) with respect to the A-Bus patent owned by Leisuretech Electronics Pty Ltd (“LTE”). The Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the A-Bus European patent at a hearing on 10th February 2010.

This successful revocation action comes after the UK High Court revoked the A-Bus patent in the UK on 14th November 2008 following a similar action brought by Armour under UK patent law.

Armour has been in dispute with LTE, an Australian company, for a number of years over the validity of the A-Bus patent. The dispute related to a patent owned by LTE, which specified a particular method of sending DC power and stereo audio signals down a single CAT-5 cable in the context of a multi-room system.

Armour’s Systemline brand has been using a similar method of power and audio transmission over CAT-5 for its Systemline Modular system since the outset, albeit with significant enhancements in the form of balanced line audio and a special DC-to-DC conversion circuit, which guarantees greater energy efficiency and consistency of performance.

Armour has always taken the view that LTE’s A-Bus patent as filed, lacked substance and was indeed an obvious solution using standard audio integrated circuits and industry standard CAT-5 cable, for which nobody in Armour’s view could claim a monopoly.

These two judgements revoking LTE’s A-Bus patent in the UK and Europe completely vindicates the position that Armour has taken on the matter.

On learning of the judgement, George Dexter, Armour’s Chief Executive commented: “When we won the revocation dispute in the UK in November 2008, I stated that I was confident of the outcome at the EPO and so this confidence has been proved well founded. Nevertheless, this is a very pleasing result and further re-enforces our view that the A-Bus solution was and is obvious and therefore should not be subject to patent protection. These two judgements must raise serious questions with regard to the validity of the patent in other territories where it still remains in force.

Armour has always acted honourably and with honesty in this matter. We have made every effort to resolve this dispute through a constructive dialogue with LTE, but sadly to no avail. Consequently the matter had to be determined by the Courts, which in both cases found in our favour.”

www.armourgroup.uk.com