Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

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

Fecha: 08-Jul-2025

The arguments on infringement

The arguments on infringement

24.

The effective length of the upper end section of the lifting arm is made variable by the provision of an extension element adjustably fixed to it – what I have called Adjustment 3. The extension element is shown to the left of the upper end section above. Integer D of claim 1 is satisfied, as are integers A to C and E. This length variation is not made by stepless adjustments. Adjustment 3 is instead done using grub screws which fit into blind holes in the upper end section (the holes are just visible in the diagram), which means that length variation here happens in discrete steps governed by the distance between the holes. Consequently, JGL argues, integer F is not satisfied and the Apex Assist does not fall within claim 1. The Apex Assist also features Adjustments 1 and 2, both of them stepless, but JGL submits that this is by the way.

25.

Autochair has three responses:

(1)

On a correct normal construction of claim 1, Adjustment 3 need not be stepless.

(2)

Alternatively, the Apex Assist is a ‘means relating to an essential element’ within the meaning of s.60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 (‘the 1977 Act’). Its supply by JGL satisfies all the requirements of s.60(2) and is therefore an act of infringement of the Patent.

(3)

The scope of claim 1 is broad enough to cover the Apex Assist under the doctrine of equivalents.