BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Bruce Bradford Scott Thomas and Lester Ware Preston III (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o28206 (3 October 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o28206.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o28206

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Bruce Bradford Scott Thomas and Lester Ware Preston III [2006] UKIntelP o28206 (3 October 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o28206

Patent decision

BL number
O/282/06
Concerning rights in
GB 0418292.9
Hearing Officer
Mr P Marchant
Decision date
3 October 2006
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Bruce Bradford Scott Thomas and Lester Ware Preston III
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 section 1(2
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention relates to insurance contracts which cover hitherto uninsurable losses associated with an insured risk. For example if an automobile is damaged, an insurance policy will normally cover the direct cost of repair or replacement, but will not cover the lost time and expense of dealing with the repair or the cost of alternative transport. The “collateral coverage” contract of the invention provides for insurers to offer extra cover which pays out an extra amount in addition to the principal insurance pay out. For example the insured may contract to receive 10% extra on top of the principal sum when an insurance policy pays out. An extra premium is paid for the collateral coverage and may be calculated using a mathematical relationship, for example, 10% extra premium for 10% collateral coverage. The hearing officer found that the invention was excluded from patentability by section 1(2)(c) since it relates to a method for doing business as such, and refused the application.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o28206.html