Sycurio Limited v PCI-PAL PLC

A patent claim must be construed purposively through the eyes of the skilled person, with the common general knowledge and the specification in view. Clear claim language should not normally be expanded or restricted by the description.

A claim requiring a request to be transmitted via a data interface to an external entity does not, without clear exclusionary language, require direct transmission or prevent processing within a call centre. The claim may cover disclosed embodiments using either direct or indirect transmission routes.

Sycurio, the proprietor of United Kingdom Patent No 2 473 376, appealed against Bacon J’s order revoking the patent for obviousness: [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat). The patent concerned blocking DTMF tones carrying transaction information from a call-centre agent while preserving voice communication.

The judge construed claim 9 as not requiring a request based on the blocked information to be sent directly to an external entity without passing through the call centre’s data-processing environment. Sycurio challenged that construction and raised further infringement grounds. The central issue was whether integer (f) imposed the asserted direct-transmission limitation.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Arnold held that Bacon J had correctly construed claim 9. Lord Justice Nugee agreed, and Lord Justice Singh also agreed.

2. Patent claims are construed purposively through the eyes of the skilled person, using the common general knowledge and the specification as context. A clear meaning in the claim should not normally be cut down or extended by the description. As explained in Philip Morris Products SA v Nicoventures Trading Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1638, clear exclusionary language would normally be needed before a claim is read as excluding a disclosed embodiment.

3. Claim 9 was drafted in broad, functional terms. The specification disclosed both arrangements in which sensitive information was processed outside the call centre and arrangements in which it was processed within the call centre but remained inaccessible to the agent. It presented both as embodiments of the invention. The location of the call processor was not material; its function was.

4. Integer (f), requiring transmission of a request “via a data interface to an external entity”, covered both direct and indirect routes. It imposed no restriction on where the request must be transmitted from and did not exclude transmission or processing within the call centre. The asserted distinction based on a call-centre communication or processing environment had no basis in the claim language or specification.

5. Sycurio did not challenge the obviousness assessment if the construction was correct. Claim 9 was therefore invalid, the revocation stood, and it was unnecessary to hear the remaining infringement grounds.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed Sycurio’s appeal and upheld the revocation of the patent.

• High Court of Justice, Intellectual Property List, Patents Court — Bacon J revoked the patent for obviousness and held, alternatively, that it was not infringed: [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat).