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

Leaving aside the microcontroller and the multiple projection system which are not relevant, the differences between the Disney Application and claim 11 were (i) no tracking system, (ii) no two IR radiation emitters on the karts and (iii) no sensor in the form of a camera capable of detecting IR radiation.

For the reasons I have given in relation to the Battlekart Disclosure, I find that claim 11 lacks inventive step over the Disney Application.

The short point which applies to all three items of prior art is that Mr Densham’s technical background made him, of the two experts in the proceedings, the more reliable source of evidence on the CGK. It led to my finding that BlackTrax and equivalent tracking systems were part of the CGK. Mr Densham, the only expert who knew anything at all about BlackTrax before this trial and who even now knows much more than Mr Viant, broadly said that BlackTrax would have taken care of the transition from each of the three cited items of prior art to a claim 11 system. I was given no good reason to disbelieve Mr Densham on this.

The defendants’ argument that claim 11 neither discloses nor renders plausible any contribution to the art adds nothing to their argument on inventive step.