斯倫貝謝控股有限公司訴電磁地球服務公司案EWCA Civ 819，  RPC 33 Jacob LJ，目的是了解對方的明顯性和索賠解釋以及不足之處。該專利本身被認為是“藝術改變”的案例。在這一點上，開發新藝術的人可能不會滿足於顯而易見和要求的解釋。 Beloit技術公司訴Valmet造紙機械公司RPC 489 at 494 to 495。引用瑞化公司專利RPC 31 at 40中Laddie J所說的案例。在此之後，Apimed提出了一項針對無效的裁定(Whish, and Bailey, 2015)。就上訴達成了一項解決辦法，在這方面，布萊特威克與本案無關，但阿皮米德繼續作出判決。然而，在要求重新考慮法官判決的上訴中，該案件被裁定蜂蜜的使用確實不是一個新概念，這個概念缺乏新意和明顯性(Griffith, Miller, and O’connell, 2015)。
它指出，最初的判決是一個錯誤，將蜂蜜用作藥物顯然不是一個新概念。在傷口護理中開發蜂蜜的過程被認為是一項條款，這曾是該公司獲得專利的商業秘密。這種情況有許多可以理解的重要因素。首先，它解釋了專利是如何授予的，專利的可執行性，父母的顯而易見性條款，判決是如何作出的，從這些案例中也可以理解常識案例。它還說明了公司和公司如何利用定居點並在其經濟前景中繼續前進。從這個例子中可以理解許多有趣的維度。這些是選擇這一特定判例法的主要原因。在已開發的不同類型的知識產權中，這是一個相當直接的專利侵權案件。商標侵權也在本案中被考慮。專利權是授予產品發明的專有權。調查發現，該公司擁有“歐洲專利(英國)No . 1237561”專利。
Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS  EWCA Civ 819,  RPC 33 Jacob LJ has been used for the purpose of understanding the obviousness and the claim interpretation and insufficiency on the other. The patent itself was stated to be the case of ‘Art Changing’. In this, the person developing a new art may not satifisy the obviousness and claim interpretation. Beloit Technologies Inc v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc  RPC 489 at 494 to 495. And the case of Laddie J said in Raychem Corporation’s Patent  RPC 31 at 40, was used to cite. Apimed subsequent to this filed a case of finding against invalidity (Whish, and Bailey, 2015). There was a settlement in respect to the appeal and in this Brightwake had no relevance to this case however Apimed continued to pursue the judgment.In the appeal to reconsider the judgment rendered by the judge, however, the case was ruled that the usage of honey was indeed not new concept and there was lack of novelty and obviousness in this notion (Griffith, Miller, and O’Connell, 2015).
It stated that the case judgment initially was a mistake and that the usage of honey as a medicinal agent is plainly not a new concept. The process of developing honey in wound care was considered to be a clause that is used to be a trade secret that was patented by the company. This case has many important elements that can be understood. First is that it explains about how patents are awarded, enforceability of the patent, obviousness clause of the parent, how judgement are rendered and common knowledge cases can also be understood from this cases. It also states how the companies and corporations utilize settlements and move on in their economical prospects. A number of interesting dimensions could be understood from this case. These are the primary reasons for selections of this particular case law. Of the different types of Intellectual property that has been developed, this is a pretty straightforward case of patent infringements. Trademark infringement was also considered in this case. Patent is the exclusive right granted for invention of the product. It was found that the Company had the patent “European Patent (UK) No 1,237,561.”