Claim No: IP-2023-000054 - [2025] EWHC 563 (IPEC)

The context is integer 1(b) – “a means for supporting a lighting module”. The specification provides the following assistance on page 3 of ‘509:

“The lighting module may comprise one or more filament lamps or neon lights. Light-emitting diodes are a viable alternative light source in many applications… Preferably the lighting module comprises a LED lighting module having at least one LED and a LED driver circuit for supplying electric power to at least one LED”.

Broadly speaking, the Claimant’s case is that a lighting module is a self-contained unit which can be swapped in and out of the luminaire, whereas the Defendant says this could be nothing more than a lamp holder and a lamp.

At paragraph 43 of his first report, in which he construed integer 1(b) of ‘509, the Claimant’s expert Mr Fisher opined that:

“The PSA would understand “lighting module” to mean not only the light source itself, but all the other components, including the electronics and optical features, that seal it into a complete and functioning self-contained unit that has its own integrity in terms of ingress protection and impact resistance. They would understand that this module is an independent unit from the claimed lighting support that could be fitted to and used with that support”

At paragraph 141 of his report Mr Keay opined that a “filament lamp” is another way of describing a traditional incandescent light bulb, which I accept. He said, “A lighting module therefore consists of a lamp (in order [I assume that should be other] words, a light bulb or LED lamp) and the component that supplies electrical power to it (in the case of a traditional light bulb, this would be the lamp holder).” In oral evidence he confirmed his opinion that a lighting module “could be the fixing for the lighting unit plus the lamp itself, so it is the whole unit… the holder and the lamp. That is a lighting unit”. He accepted that it had to be something more than just a lamp, and something that could be swapped in and out of the luminaire. Mr Fisher disagrees that this is how “lighting module” would be understood by the PSA. In his oral evidence he stated explicitly “There are quite clear definitions as to what a lamp is and what a lighting module is and what a luminaire is. A lighting module, I construe that to be different than a socketed lamp”.

To the extent that Mr Keay in his second report states that Mr Fisher has interpreted lighting module as only an LED lighting module, ignoring the broader possibility in the specification that “the lighting module may comprise one or more filament lamps or neon lights”, I do not consider this to be correct. It seems clear from Mr Fisher’s opinion at paragraph 43 of his first report, cited above, that he is agnostic on how the light is emitted, referring neutrally to “a light source”. Mr de Froment made the point in opening that the Defendant appeared, in Ms Lawrence’s skeleton argument, to be submitting that it was the Claimant’s case that a lighting module is only an LED lighting module, but this was not the case. He also put it to Mr Keay in cross-examination that Mr Fisher was not referring only to LEDs in his opinion, and he accepted that, although he said, “he does focus primarily on LED”. I do not think that is a fair criticism.

I have considered this carefully and on balance I accept Mr Fisher’s construction as how the PSA would understand “lighting module”. That is because Mr Fisher, like the PSA is a lighting support design engineer which Mr Keay is not, and I found Mr Fisher’s statement that there are clear definitions of each understood by those working in the field, to be convincing.