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

The idea of creating an altered experience of reality is probably as old as the idea of art. In recent years technology has led to the development of ever more convincing ways to deliver the impression of experiencing a different environment. Immersive experiences which engage the senses in this way have been developed in the fields of art, education, healthcare, marketing and not least, entertainment.

Video games became widespread before immersive experiences, including Nintendo’s Mario Kart,first marketed in 1992, in which players compete in go-kart races on screen. Players must negotiate the track and simulated obstacles such as rockets or bananas which affect the direction or speed of the kart – encountering a banana, for instance, will cause the on-screen kart to spin.

European Patent 3 304 522 B8 (‘the Patent’) claims a system for creating an immersive experience which combines driving a real go-kart with the features of a video game like Mario Kart. The player drives a kart around a track which takes the form of an image projected onto the floor. The track may be varied at any time and obstacles are projected onto it. The motion of the kart is partly within the control of the driver but is also significantly influenced remotely by the system. For instance it detects when the kart encounters a simulated obstacle and will cause the kart to react accordingly – using the same example, hitting a simulated banana will make the kart literally spin. There may be more than one driver so that drivers can compete. The combination of driving a real kart with the creation of these effects is called an extended reality or XR system.

The evidence sometimes also referred to augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR) and immersive reality (IR) systems. IR is probably the broader term, encompassing XR, AR, VR and MR, although fashion in the use of those terms seems to come and go. To the extent that there are nuanced differences, they were not given any significance in the present case. For consistency I will use the term XR to mean any or all of the above.

The Patent is owned by the claimant (‘Battlekart’). The first to third defendants are related companies, all owned or ultimately owned by a holding company, Little Lion Holdings Ltd. The fourth defendant (‘Mr Maguire’) is a director of the First to Third Defendants and was treated at trial as if he is the moving force behind them. It was not necessary to decide whether that is accurate in law. For the most part the defendants need not be distinguished.

Battlekart has built up a franchising business for its Battlekart System. In 2017 Mr Maguire contacted Battlekart and there followed discussions about whether the third defendant would enter into a franchise agreement for the UK.

Later the defendants developed their own XR karting system, called the ‘Chaos Karts System’, first trialled in October 2020 and launched in London in 2021.

It is common ground that marketing the Chaos Kart System infringes claim 11 of the Patent as dependent on claims 1, 5 and 6, if valid. To avoid unnecessary repetition, hereafter my references to claim 11 should be taken to mean that claim as dependent on claims 1, 5 and 6.

The defendants have counterclaimed, alleging that claim 11 is invalid on the grounds of lack of inventive step, that claim 11 neither discloses nor renders plausible any technical contribution to the art, and added matter.