Patents - Networld Sports v Quick Play Sport

Author RickDikeman  Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

 

 

Jane Lambert

Patents Court (David Stone) Networld Sports Ltd v Quick Play Sport Ltd [2026] EWHC 1295 (Ch) (1 June 2026)

This was an appeal by Networld Sports Ltd ("Networld") against the decision of Dr Benjamin Micklewright on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of 14 Oct 2025 not to revoke claims 1 and 10 of European patent (UK) 2 146 786 B1 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.  The appeal was heard by Mr David Stone sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 9 March 2026.  Mr Stone handed down his judgment on 1 June 2026.  By para [43] of his judgment in Networld Sports Ltd v Quick Play Sport Ltd [2026] EWHC 1295 (Ch) (1 June 2026), he dismissed Networld's appeal.

The Invention
The title of the patent was "Goal Apparatus".   It consisted of a frame, first and second flexible goal post members and a flexible crossbar member releasably connectable to the frame.  The apparatus could be stowed away in a container when not in use which could be carried in one hand as in Figure 8 below.  

There had been portable goals before but t hey tended to be made of tubular plastic materials which were lighter but bulky to carry and store.   A typical example was David Chen's "Collapsible Sports Goal Apparatus" for which US patent 5,690,339 had been granted.  An aim of aspects of the patented invention was to address the above-mentioned or other problems.  Mr Stone noted at para [10] of his judgment that Counsel for the patentee, Quick Play Sport Ltd ("Quick Play"), had described the benefit of the invention as being that "narrow flexible poles can be used to form the frame and ... the need for large rigid members for the base, goalposts and crossbar is avoided, lending itself to portability."

The Claims
 The patent in suit had 4 independent claims:

• Claim 1:  the goal apparatus; 
• Claim 10: the frame;  
• Claim 11: the net; and 
• Claim 15; "a method of providing a goal". 

The hearing officer, Dr Micklewright, had found claims 11 and 15 not to be novel and there was no appeal from that finding.

Claims 1 and 10 referred to the following drawings:

Claim 1:

"Goal apparatus (101), comprising:

a frame (102), a net (103), and
a first pliable goalpost member (105), a second pliable goalpost member (106) and a pliable crossbar member (107);
Said frame (102) presents a first lower net connection point (201) and a first upper net connection point (202), and a second lower net connection point (203) and a second upper net connection point (204);
characterised in that said frame (102) is configured to:
support said first pliable goalpost member (105) in tension between said first lower net connection point (201) and said first upper net connection point (202),
support said second pliable goalpost (106) member in tension between said second lower net connection point (203) and said second upper net connection point (204), and
support said pliable crossbar member (107) in tension between said first upper net connection point (202) and said second upper net connection point (204);
such that said first and second pliable goalpost members (105, 106) extend substantially parallel to each other and said pliable crossbar member (107) extends substantially perpendicularly to said first and second pliable goalpost members (105, 106);
wherein the first and second upper net connection points (202, 204) of the frame (102) are biased apart laterally from a position relative to each other and wherein the net (103) presents an enclosure when assembled."

Claim 10:

"A frame (102) for use in the goal apparatus (101) of claim 1, comprising:
a base member (205) for resting on a support surface; and
First and second post members (206, 207):
wherein
Said base member (205) presents first and second lower net connection points (201, 203) said first and second post members (206, 207) present first and second upper net connection points (202, 204) respectively, characterised in that
Said first and second upper net connection points (202, 204) are normally biased apart from a position at which the frame (102) is placed in compression."

Dr Micklewright's Decision

Mr Stone quoted paras [23] to [27] of Dr Micklewright's decision.  An important integer of Claim 1 was 

"wherein the first and second upper net connection points of the frame are biased apart laterally from a position relative to each other...".   

There was a corresponding integer in Claim 10:  

"Said first and second upper net connection points (202, 204) are normally biased apart from a position at which the frame (102) is placed in compression."

At para [41] of his decision, the hearing officer found that the US patent did not disclose upper net connection points of the frame which were biased apart laterally from a position relative to each other, as was required by Claim 1 of the patent. Consequently, Claim 1 of the patent in suit was novel over the prior art.

The hearing officer had held in para [45] of his decision that the corresponding integer of Claim 10 should be construed in a manner consistent with the bias feature of Claim 1. In his view, the skilled reader would understand "placed in compression" to relate to the state of the frame when attached to a net. In the US patent, the frame posts were also elastically bent, and the frame could be considered as "in compression" when attached to the net. It seemed to Dr Micklewright that the state of being normally biased apart from a position at which the frame was placed in compression suggested that they were normally biased apart when the frame was not under compression. In US patent 5,690,339 the upper connection points were normally biased together when the frame was not placed in compression rather than apart. The hearing officer did not consider the US patent to disclose upper net connection points that are normally biased apart from a position at which the frame was placed in compression as required by Claim 10. It followed that Claim 10 was novel over the US patent.

Grounds of Appeal
Networld appealed against Dr Micklewright's findings on the following grounds: 

"1. The Hearing Officer erred in his construction of the integer of claim 1 "wherein the first and second upper net connection points of the frame are biased apart laterally from a position relative to each other...". This, he had (correctly) held was the only point of distinction between the claimed product and that disclosed in claim 1. Had he correctly construed this integer as relating to the biasing force experienced by the assembled product, he would have held the product of claim 1 not to be novel.
2. The learned Hearing Officer erred also in connection with the corresponding integer of claim 10 for essentially the same reason. Had he correctly construed the integer he would have held the product of claim 10 not to be novel."

Ground 1
Networld alleged that the hearing officer had misconstrued the words "wherein the first and second upper net connection points of the frame are biased apart laterally from a position relative to each other...". It submitted that the true costruction should have been

"the 'biased apart laterally' requirement is the aspect that causes the crossbar to be tensioned, it is to be achieved when the goal is assembled and may be achieved by a particular arrangement of just the frame or by some combination of the frame and other structure such as the net... If the biasing apart was just to be done by the frame, then the claim needed to say so. And it does not."

Mr Stone did not think that the hearing officer had erred in his construction of that integer. Having correctly construed the patent, he also correctly found novelty over the prior art.

The learned deputy judge noted that Networld presented materials in its oral submissions that had not been before the hearing officer. As Networld did not allege that the hearing officer had strayed from the principles contained in those materials Mr Stone kept them generally in mind.

Ground 2
At the hearing, Networld confirmed that the appeal in relation to Claim 10 stood and fell with that for Claim 1. Having found no error in the hearing officer's decision in relation to Claim 1, Mr Stone also rejected the appeal in relation to Claim 10.

Respondent's Notice
In a respondent's notice, Quick Play asked the court to uphold Dr Micklewright's decision on the additional ground that the prior art did not disclose a frame configured to support a pliable crossbar member in tension between the upper net connection points in the sense required by the claim. The respondent relied on anther integer of Claim 1: 

"[The frame is configured to] support said pliable crossbar member (107) in tension between said first upper net connection point (202) and said second upper net connection point (204) ......"

The hearing officer found that the arrangement for supporting the crossbar in tension in the US patent fell within the scope of Claim 1 and the key question was whether that patent disclosed the biasing apart of the first and second upper net connection points laterally from a position relative to each other. Quick Play submitted that he had been wrong to have found that the tension integer was satisfied by a crossbar which had tension in it only as a result of bearing its own weight. Quick Play submitted that that integer required the frame actively to exert tension on the crossbar to provide structural integrity to the goal mouth.

In Mr Stone's view, the frame should be configured to support the pliable crossbar member in tension. That is what gave the goal as a whole structural rigidity. Tension must be applied to the cross-bar. It did not just hang under its own weight. Claim 1 provided for the tops of the compression members to be biased apart laterally. They would therefore impart tension into the crossbar between them.

As the prior art did not disclose a frame configured to support a pliable crossbar member in tension between a first upper net connection point and a second upper net connection point, it followed that Claim 1 had not been anticipated for an additional reason. The deputy judge therefore allowed the respondent's notice.

Further Information
Anyone wishing to discuss this case is invited to call me during normal UK business hours on 020 7494 5252 or send me a message through my contact form at any time.