Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

IP-2024-000061 - [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC)

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Conclusions

Added Matter

126.

No point was raised regarding the law on added matter. Arnold LJ has recently explained the reasoning behind it and why the rule is strictly applied, see Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWCA Civ 903, at [11] to [13].

127.

This is the relevant disclosure in the application for the Patent as filed:

‘The emitter 210 preferably comprises at least one electromagnetic radiation source, which can be an infrared lamp. The emitter 210 more preferably comprises at least two electromagnetic radiation sources. Having two sources enables one of the sources to always 20 be active in the event of the other one failing. The emitter 210 even more preferably comprises a first infrared lamp 211 and a second infrared lamp 212. The electromagnetic radiation source is preferably of variable intensity. Preferably, the on-board computer 230 sends power to the electronic interface 240, which must emit the infrared LED 211, 212. In one embodiment of the invention, the infrared LED 211, 212 can have two states: switched-off and switched-on at full power.’

128.

The parties were agreed that this passage discloses an emitter with alternatively (a) one electromagnetic radiation source which is IR, or (b) two electromagnetic radiation sources, or (c) two electromagnetic radiation sources which are both IR. It does not disclose an emitter comprising at least two electromagnetic sources of which only one is IR.

129.

The issue was whether integer G of claim 1 on a proper construction does disclose an emitter comprising at least two electromagnetic sources of which only one is IR.

130.

This is integer G of claim 1:

‘and in that each mobile element further comprises an emitter comprising at least two electromagnetic radiation sources comprising an infrared emitter, the emitter being arranged to transmit a signal enabling the mobile element to be located by the locating system.’

131.

Mr Viant gave some evidence on this but did not say that there were terms of art which required explaining. This is a matter of interpretation for the court.

132.

Battlekart submitted that the body of the specification nowhere teaches the use of an emitter comprising at least two electromagnetic sources of which only one is IR. I will assume it does not but a claim can be a source of disclosure in a Patent just as much as the body of the specification, a principle of law which was not challenged by Battlekart. If a claim, properly understood, discloses matter, it makes no difference whether or not it is disclosed elsewhere.

133.

Battlekart’s main argument was that in integer G the words ‘sources comprising’ would be understood to mean ‘each source comprising’. So the emitter comprises at least two electromagnetic radiation sources each of which comprises an IR emitter. Both must be IR.

134.

I disagree. In my view the words ‘sources comprising’ mean what they say. The words qualify ‘at least two electromagnetic radiation sources’. The at least two electromagnetic radiation sources must collectively comprise at least one IR emitter. There may be more than one IR emitter but there need not be. The reader is therefore told that there may be at least two electromagnetic radiation sources of which only one is IR.

135.

The Patent is invalid for added matter.

Conclusion

136.

The Patent is invalid for lack of inventive step and for added matter.