Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

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

Fecha: 14-Mar-2025

Woolston

Woolston

79.

This is an installation at Woolston station footbridge. It comprises an illuminated handrail (white in the photograph below) and a sloped wedge above it (green in the photograph below) which the experts agree is angled at approximately 45 degrees. It is agreed that the illuminated handrail is a lighting support for the purposes of integer 1(a). The Defendant’s case is that Claim 1 of ‘509 and Claim 1 of ‘566 are not novel over Woolston, although it accepts that Claims 5, 6 and 8 are novel over Woolston.

80.

The only integers of Claim 1 of ‘509 identified by the Claimant as missing from Woolston are 1(d) and 1(e). In relation to 1(d) it submits that the green wedge is not “a roof located on top of the support in normal use”. Given my construction of this integer, I am with the Claimant, as in my judgment the green wedge is not part of the lighting support (indeed, Mr Keay accepted in cross-examination that the green wedge and the handrail were different items supplied by different contractors) and it is not on top of it. Since it does not fulfil integer 1(d), it cannot fulfil integer 1(e) “wherein the roof is configured to inhibit the support from acting as a foothold” as this relies on 1(d). In addition, the Claimant submits that the green wedge is not configured to inhibit the illuminated handrail (being the lighting support) from acting as a foothold, as it does not extend the full length of the handrail. I also accept this point. It can be seen that the end of the handrail is accessible and could be used as a foothold, as Mr Keay accepted in cross-examination. The fact that it has been installed at a height which he thought was too high for a foothold to be obtained is, as the Claimant submits, nothing to do with whether the roof is configured to inhibit the support from acting as a foothold. In my judgment, it is not.

81.

These findings also hold for the identical but differently-numbered integers 1(f) and 1 (g) of ‘566. Accordingly I am satisfied that Claim 1 of each of ‘509 and ‘566 are novel over Woolston.

82.

The Claimant further identifies integer 1(d) of ‘566 as missing from Woolston - “a means for supporting at least one cable or pipe along an axis of elongation of the support”. Although it is not strictly necessary for me to deal with this, I will do so. The Claimant relies on Mr Fisher’s opinion that the illuminated handrail is not a means for supporting at least one cable or pipe. The Defendant submits that it is, relying on Mr Keay’s report. Mr Keay’s opinion on this point has been reached in a way which I am satisfied does show the hand of the Defendant’s solicitors Penningtons as being too firmly on the tiller, as Mr de Froment for the Claimant submits. Mr Keay’s reasoning is as follows:

Penningtons explained to Mr Keay the Claimant’s interpretation of this element of Claim 1 of ‘566, namely that the lighting module in the handrail will necessarily require an electrical connection, that will be delivered by cables, those cables will pass through a portion of the bracket, and the lower curved portion of the bracket will act as a means of support of those cables;

ii)

Penningtons then gave Mr Keay photographs of the Defendant’s Alinea Anti-Climb rail (which the Claimant has alleged, and the Defendant accepts subject to validity, infringes the ‘566 Patent) from which Mr Keay infers, because he says there is no other feature or element which can be said to be supporting a cable, that the floor of the product is the means for supporting at least one cable or pipe along an axis of elongation of the support;

iii)

Penningtons then asked Mr Keay “to adopt the Claimant’s interpretation of this feature” of Claim 1 of ‘566, i.e. that it is present when a lighting support simply has a floor, when considering the prior art;

iv)

That has led him to opine that because the illuminated handrail has a floor, this is a means for supporting at least one cable or pipe along an axis of elongation of the support.

83.

When Mr de Froment put it to Mr Keay in cross-examination that the Woolston handrail was not a means for supporting a cable or a pipe he simply answered, “I don’t know”. In my judgment, that goes to show that the opinion in his report was not one which he had arrived at independently, but one to which he had been led by Penningtons. I accept Mr Fisher’s evidence on this point and am satisfied that integer is not made out in Woolston.