DSS's patent deceased -- in the UK, at any rate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe33a/fe33a926dcf76874d591c2f61d95f38bb3b5b327" alt=""
Right: the IPKat applauds the Court for its use of illustrations. If he can't follow the words, he can at least enjoy the pictures ...
In a fairly short decision by modern English standards (just 52 paragraphs) the Court of Appeal firmly dismissed DSS's appeal. The vast bulk of this judgment consisted of a helpful review of the technological background and a painstakingly careful review of the evidence. Having done all this, the Court of Appeal had no doubt that the trial judge's reasons for his holding were absolutely sound.
The IPKat feels that disputes of this nature, involving allegations of infringement and claims fo revocation in a range of closely connected jurisictions with the same substantive laws, though different evidential and procedural rules, are a good argument in favour of mediation [says Merpel -- if you're man enough to handle it] or centralised patent litigation in Europe.
Other ECB/DSS disputes have been noted by the IPKat here (Dutch patent held valid), here (French patent revoked) and here (German patent valid).