AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Limited & Anor.

In construing a patent claim, words such as “image property” must be read in their full technical and textual context. A broad expression is not confined to a particular processing technique merely because the specification describes that technique. A claim requiring detection of an occluding object by radiation from that object does not naturally extend to inferring an object from the absence of radiation.

Open claim language may encompass multiple cameras, captured images and detection images where the claim does not impose an express numerical limit. Obviousness requires a persuasive reason for the skilled person to adopt the proposed modification; a general list of possible developments and hindsight are insufficient.

AIM alleged that Supponor’s SVB System infringed claim 12 of European Patent (UK) 3 295 663 B1, concerning the digital replacement of advertising displayed on sporting-event billboards in television images while preserving occluding objects.

The issues were claim construction, infringement, obviousness over Patent Application WO 2013/186278 A1 (Nevatie), conditional amendments, clarity, added matter and the effect of admissions concerning other claims. Supponor also advanced a procedural argument based on Promptu v Sky. The central questions were whether claim 12 required higher-order image processing or only pixel brightness analysis, whether it was limited to one detection image, and whether the SVB System was validly covered.

1. Construction. “Image property” was a broad expression. Claim 12 was not limited to higher-order processing or spatial-frequency descriptors. Claim 2’s narrower wording supported that conclusion. The claim was also directed to detecting radiation from the occluding object and did not naturally cover a dark object inferred only from the absence of radiation. The conditional amendments were therefore unnecessary on construction.
2. Feature 12.3 did not require one and only one detection image. The use of “at least one”, together with the open wording “comprising”, permitted multiple cameras, captured images and stages of processing.
3. Infringement. The SVB System’s pixel-by-pixel brightness and ratio processing satisfied features 12.3 and 12.5. It therefore infringed claim 12 if valid.
4. Validity. The skilled person would regard Nevatie as worth developing and might identify practical difficulties in bright ambient conditions. However, Supponor did not establish a persuasive reason to apply visible-light chroma-keying analogies and add a second infrared channel. The Nevatie Plus argument was hindsight-driven and failed. The Nevatie-OD argument also failed because the evidence identified only vague possible techniques, without a clear expectation that higher-order processing would be needed or beneficial.
5. The proposed amendments would have been permissible if required. The clarity and added-matter objections failed. The admissions concerning claims 1 and 13 did not amount to an admission that claim 12 was invalid. Claim 13 had nevertheless to be deleted because AIM had accepted that it would stand or fall with claim 1.
6. Claim 12 was valid as granted and infringed. The remaining claims were to be deleted, subject to the form of order.