Shell fought back Ensygnia Corporate charge. Before this, Ensygnia Had accused a Shell developed, A system that allows consumers to pay for gas at the pump via an app infringes on one of its patents. The UK High Court eventually ruled against the patents in question. At present, Ensygnia Efforts are still being made to develop multiple solutions for mobile payment systems.

In this patent case involving a mobile app payment system, The UK High Court ruled against the tech companies Ensygnia An infringement claim against Shell Oil Company. Number as GB2489332C1 The patent in question relates to a method and system for identifying users via QR codes, This method and system allows users to use the registration service.

concretely, Ensygnia The charge is a Shell product called "Fill Up & Go" The system of, And thinks the system infringes on them "Onescan" Platform rights. Make use of "Fill Up & Go" , Registered consumers can buy fuel at Shell's gas stations through the company's app.

wherefrom Ensygnia The information provided by the station, As a start-up, Ensygnia "The ability to provide a platform as a service, And will 350 A variety of different payment methods are combined with secure password-less authentication technology" , This includes the use of QR codes for customers and retailers.

Shell has won

Shell has denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim to dismiss them, The reason given is No GB2489332C1 The patent is compared to the prior technology "Kilicote" and "Schmidt" It is predictable and obvious. In addition, The company also made such additional matters invalid, The extension of the scope of protection.

therefore, The court carefully considered whether the patent in question was obvious and predictable, And whether the modifications made to the specification and claims after authorization are within the permissible range. meanwhile, The court also examined whether Shell's payment system infringed the amended GB2489332C1 Right to patent Claim No. merely, Presiding Judge Charlotte．mei (Charlotte May) Ultimately it comes down to additional matters, Scope of protection and comparison with prior technology "Schmidt" Whether this is obvious 3 Ruled that the patent in question was invalid. The preceding technology "Schmidt" It's a piece numbered EP2073160A1 European patent application. (Be compiled from www. juve-patent. com)  

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.