IP-2024-000057 - [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC)

I accept Mr Hibbert’s point that the longitudinal, or axial, stress at the point of Adjustment 1 is likely to be greater than at the point of Adjustment 3. But the insistence in the fitting instructions issued with Apex Assist on securing Adjustment 3 using grub screws and holes corroborates Mr Shaw’s position that securing the extension element this way is important for safety. Mr Hibbert agreed that if the extension element was secured by compression/friction only and the grub screws became loose, the extension element would slide out.

The relevance of this depends on what is meant by the ‘result’. If it means, or rather includes, the result of securing the extension element safely, there is not just a difference in how the Apex Assist achieves this, according to Mr Shaw it is not achieved at all.

A skilled person reading the Patent would not have the safety of the means of Adjustment 3 drawn to their attention, although possibly they would have safety in mind as part of their CGK. That said, I was given no reason to doubt that claim 1 covers a hoist which complies with all the integers of the claim even if it is not safe in the way discussed by Mr Shaw. It would seem to follow that the inventive concept – the idea that both Adjustments 1 and 3 must be stepless – has no safety qualification. That being so, it would further seem that whatever ‘substantially the same result’ as the inventive concept means in this context, it has nothing to do with safety. However, there was no argument on the meaning of ‘result’ and I need not reach a final conclusion.

It is clear from the Patent specification and the evidence that the primary result achieved by the inventive concept is maximum manoeuvrability of the load, thus making the best possible use of the boot space available in the largest number of different vehicles. Although paragraph [0023] refers expressly to headroom, I do not believe that this would have led the skilled person to understand that such a goal depends solely on variation in height. It makes no obvious sense, Mr Hibbert did not explain why it should and his concession that a stepless Adjustment 3 could make fitting easier was, I think, a tacit acceptance that the advantage offered by stepless adjustment, as understood by the skilled person reading the Patent, would have included the advantage of stepless variation in the length and reach of the lifting arm. That advantage of the inventive concept is not adequately achieved if Adjustment 3 is by 10mm increments. Therefore the Apex Assist does not achieve substantially the same result as the inventive concept.

The necessary first stage of Autochair’s argument on equivalence fails.