Jeff Gosling Limited v Autochair Limited

For a patent claim requiring two adjustments to be stepless, both identified adjustments must satisfy that requirement where the claim links them to the relevant length and height variations. Discrete adjustment in 10 mm increments is not equivalent to stepless adjustment merely because it offers substantial practical flexibility.

For indirect infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977, the relevant intention is that of the person who will put the invention into effect. The requirement may be satisfied by the intended conduct of some users, but not where the relevant implementation would be irresponsible. Manufacturer instructions and safety consequences may be important evidence of that issue.

Jeff Gosling Limited sought a declaration that its Apex Assist hoist did not infringe European Patent No 2 578 197 B1, owned by Autochair Limited. Autochair counterclaimed for infringement. Validity was not in issue.

The alleged infringement concerned a claim for a vehicle hoist with stepless adjustment of both the length of a projecting upper section and the height of the lifting arm. The Apex Assist used blind holes producing discrete 10 mm adjustments for the upper section, although another adjustment was stepless.

Autochair relied on normal construction, indirect infringement under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977, and the doctrine of equivalents.

1. Construction. On the natural reading of claim 1, read with the specification, integer F required both Adjustment 1 and Adjustment 3 to be stepless. The reference to both length and height variations linked back to the length variation in integer D and the height variation in integer E. The Apex Assist therefore did not infringe on a normal construction.
2. Indirect infringement. Section 60(2) required proof on the balance of probabilities that: the supplied product was a means relating to an essential element; it was suitable for putting the invention into effect; the supplier knew, or it would be obvious to a reasonable person, that the means could be used to put the invention into effect and that at least some parties would intend to do so in the United Kingdom; and the relevant parties were not maverick users whose implementation would be irresponsible. The relevant intention was that of the person who would put the invention into effect, here the fitter rather than the consumer who used the hoist day to day.
3. The fitting instructions strongly required the extension element to be secured through the blind holes and warned that deviation would invalidate the warranty and product insurance. The evidence did not establish that relevant fitters would intend to use compression or friction instead. The section 60(2) claim therefore failed.
4. Equivalents. The inventive concept, for these proceedings, was the idea that Adjustments 1 and 3 would both be stepless. The 10 mm stepped adjustment did not achieve substantially the same result because it did not provide the same maximum manoeuvrability and flexibility in fitting the hoist across different vehicles. The equivalents case consequently failed.
5. JGL was entitled to a declaration of non-infringement.