Scopema Sarl v Scot Seat Direct Ltd

Patent claims must be construed by giving effect to their language and to every intentional integer. A claimed notch described as a housing for receiving a rod, with a complementary surface and configured to cap part of the rod’s circumference, requires more than a rod bearing against one flat edge at a single point. The immaterial-variation principle cannot be used to disregard those limitations. An unclear description of another embodiment cannot enlarge the claim. A product with only one-point contact therefore did not infringe, and the appeal was dismissed.

Scopema, the patentee of a European patent for a tilting device for a vehicle seat back, appealed against a decision of the Patents County Court. The judge held that Scot’s product did not infringe claim 1 because it lacked the claimed notch and, unless greased, lacked the required unlocking geometry. The appeal principally concerned the proper construction of the claim’s requirements for a housing, complementary surface and capping engagement. The finding that the locking rod touched Scot’s product at only one point was not challenged. The central issue was whether that arrangement fell within claim 1.

The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

1. Patent claims must be construed by reference to their language, giving effect to all claim integers and to elements which were intentionally included. The applicable construction principles were identified by reference to Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors Ltd [2009] EWHC 26 (Pat) at [182], as approved with minor amendments by the Court of Appeal in [2009] EWCA Civ 1062 and [2010] RPC 192 at [5] (para [17]).

2. Integers [d] and [f] required the notch to be a housing for receiving the rod. A flat surface against which a rod merely bears could not naturally be described as a housing or as receiving the rod. Integer [e] required a surface adapted to bear against a complementary surface. In context, that indicated essentially mating surfaces, not a round rod meeting a flat surface. Integer [g] required the notch to cap the rod over part of its circumference. One-point contact did not meaningfully cap the rod or cover part of its circumference (para [18]).

3. The immaterial-variation argument could not justify ignoring whole integers or disregarding obviously intentional elements of the claim (para [19]). Nor could the description of the second, unillustrated embodiment overcome the claim’s limitations. The reference to adapting the notch’s dimensions did not clearly establish that its shape could be materially different or include a flat edge (para [20]).

4. The judge’s unchallenged factual finding was that Scot’s round locking rod touched the flat edge of the lug at one point only. That arrangement fell outside claim 1. The other grounds, including the requirement in integer [i], therefore did not arise (paras [21]–[22]).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously on 28 February 2014.
2. Patents County Court: Mr Recorder Wilson QC held that Scot’s product did not infringe claim 1. The decision is reported at [2013] EWPCC 32.