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

Autochair submitted that integer F simply requires that both length and height variations in the lifting arm are made by stepless adjustments. Adjustment 1 in the Apex Assist is stepless. Necessarily Adjustment 2 is too (hereafter I will take it as read that the Adjustments 1 and 2 go hand in hand). Adjustment 1 provides variation in both the length and height of the lifting arm because its major length (15 in Figure 1 of the Patent) is neither horizontal nor vertical in use. Thus both length and height variations in the lifting arm can be achieved steplessly. Integer F is satisfied.

JGL argued that this reasoning relies on an incorrect interpretation of claim 1. Integer C introduces the projecting upper end section 32 of the major part 15 of the lifting arm. Integer D says that the effective length of the projecting upper end section is made variable by the provision of an extension element 34 adjustably fixed to it – in other words, the length of the upper end section is made variable by Adjustment 3. Integer E goes on to require that the height of the lifting arm is made variable by Adjustment 1. When integer F speaks of ‘both length and height variations’, this is a reference back to the length of the upper end section referred to in integer D and the height of the lifting arm referred to in integer E. Integer F requires that both these variations must be stepless. In other words, both Adjustment 1 and Adjustment 3 must be stepless.

I agree with Autochair that Adjustment 1 leads to variation in both the length and height of the lifting arm. But to my mind JGL’s interpretation of claim 1 accords with the more natural reading of the claim. Of course it must be interpreted by reference to the specification as a whole. This is paragraph [0013]:

The second sentence makes it clear that Adjustment 3 is stepless. Mr Shaw’s evidence was that from a purposive perspective, having both Adjustments 1 and 3 stepless allows maximum flexibility in locating the clamp and thereby the wheelchair or scooter. Mr Hibbert accepted in cross-examination that both adjustments would be used in practice when fitting a load. I accept this evidence, which reinforces JGL’s construction of claim 1.

Autochair had a subsidiary argument under this head. It was that the skilled person would have regarded the adjustment using the Apex Assist blind holes, which are 10mm apart, just as good as literally continuous adjustment, and it would have been treated as stepless by the skilled person. Mr Hibbert said in his report that a 10mm degree of adjustment would have been seen as a ‘game changer’ in terms of available adjustability.

Even assuming Mr Hibbert is right about this, it does not follow that the skilled person would have regarded 10mm step adjustment to be the same thing as stepless adjustment as that term is used in claim 1. In cross-examination Mr Hibbert accepted that from a practical perspective they would not have been viewed to be the same.

I find that claim 1 requires that both Adjustments 1 and 3 are stepless. The Apex Assist does not infringe on a normal construction of the claim.