Patents - Jeff Gosling Ltd v Autochair Ltd
Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacom) Jeff Gosling Ltd. v Autochair Ltd, [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC) 8 July 2025
The Parties
Jeff Gosling Ltd. ("JGL") installs a range of boot hoists used to load a wheelchair or scooter into the boot of a saloon car or the rear of a hatchback, van or estate car. One of those products is known as an "Apex Assist" hoist. A diagram of that product taken from its fitting instructions appears above.
Autochair Ltd. ("Autochair") also supplies a range of hoists that load and unload wheelchairs, mobility scooters and power chairs from vehicles. That company is the proprietor of European Patent No. 2 578 197 B1 (‘the Patent’) for a hoist for loading and unloading an item into and out of the load-carrying space of a vehicle such as the boot of a car.
Declarations of Non-Infringement
S.71 of the Patents Act 1977 provides a procedure by which a party who fears that an activity might be regarded as a patent infringement, may write to the owner of the patent, explain what he or she is doing or proposes to do, and seek the proprietor's acknowledgement that the act will not infringe the patent. If the patentee refuses to give such an acknowledgement, the party seeking it may apply to the Patents Court, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") or the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for a declaration that the act does not, or will not, infringe the patent. That provision occurs in a cluster of sections that restrict abuse of a patent monopoly. The preceding sections prohibit unjustified threats, and the succeeding section provides for patent revocation.
The Dispute
Although the judgment transcript is silent on the history of the dispute, it may be surmised that JGL asked Autochair for an acknowledgement that its product would not infringe the Patent and that Autochair refused its request. JGL applied for a declaration of non-infringement under s.71 (1). Autochair counterclaimed for patent infringement under s.60 (1) and (2).
The Trial
The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 5 June 2025. By para [70] of his judgment, the learned judge dismissed Autochair's counterclaim and held that JGL was entitled to a declaration of non-infringement (see Jeff Gosling Ltd. v Autochair Ltd, [2025] EWHC 1687 (IPEC) 8 July 2025).
The Patent
Para 0003 of the Patent specification states:
"The kind of hoist with which the invention is concerned includes an upstanding pivot post which is to be secured within and to one side of the load carrying space of a vehicle, and a lifting arm pivotally connected at a lower end of said pivot post, an actuator member being, at one end, pivotally connected at or near the upper end of said pivot post and at its other end pivotally connected to an intermediate point along the length of the lifting arm, the arrangement being such that, in use, as the working length of the actuator is reduced the lifting arm is raised, and as the working length of the actuator is increased the lifting arm is lowered."
Para 0005 continues
"According to the invention, there is provided a hoist mechanism as defined in the appended claim 1. The effective length of a projecting upper end section is made variable by the provision of an extension element adjustably fixed to it, and the lifting arm is also variable in upstanding height by the provision of a lower end section slidably connected to said major part, both length variations being made by stepless adjustments. The major part of the lifting arm may be formed with longitudinally extending undercut slots along its side edges, these providing the means whereby a bracket pivotally connecting the actuator to the lifting arm can be steplessly adjusted in position along the length of the said major part, the undercut grooves housing clamping plates with tapped holes which can be engaged by clamping bolts extending through clearance holes in side walls of the bracket. The side walls of said bracket will preferably be formed with key elements on their inside surfaces, these engaging the longitudinally extending slots in the side walls of the major part of the lifting arm."The relevant aspects of the Patent appear in the following paragraphs from Judge Hacon's judgment:
"[14] This is the hoist as shown in Figure 1 of the Patent
[15] A pivot post 10 is mounted on one side of a car boot. A lifting arm 14 is pivotally connected at 16 to a bracket 18 at the lower end of the pivot post. An actuator 20 controls the inclination of the lifting arm and is pivotally connected to a bracket 28 at the upper end of the major length 15 of the lifting arm.
[16] An upper end section 32 of the lifting arm projects at an angle to the major length 15. An extension element 34 projects from the upper end section. A cross beam 50 hangs from the end of the extension element having clamps 60 at either end. The clamps are used to support a wheelchair or scooter which can be lifted by the hoist from the exterior of the vehicle and placed into the boot and vice versa.
[17] To achieve a change in the height of the clamp, a lowermost section 13 of the lifting arm can be extended downwards - as shown, there is a telescopic extension 13 out of and down from the major length of the lifting arm. Since the lifting arm is at an angle, this will also extend the horizontal reach of the lifting arm and the clamp at its end. The upper end section 32 can be raised to be positioned close to the roof lining of the vehicle 11.
[18] To allow movement of the lowermost section 13 relative to the major length 15 of the lifting arm, there must be corresponding variation in the position of bracket 28 along the length of major length 15, i.e. the bracket slides up and down in accordance with the movement of the lowermost section 13 in and out of the major length.
[19] The overall length of the lifting arm can also be adjusted by variation in the position of the extension element 34 relative to the upper end section 32 of the lifting arm. In the form shown in Figure 1, this is another telescopic adjustment, the extension element moving in and out of the upper end section.
[20] The pivotal motion of the lifting arm relative to the pivot post allows radial motion of the hoist as a whole. Otherwise, the positioning of the cross-beam and thereby the manoeuvring of the wheelchair or scooter is achieved by varying the length and height of the hoist. This is done using three adjustments, all of which may be motor driven:
(1) Adjustment of the position of lowermost section 13 relative to the major length 15 of the lifting arm. I will call this ‘Adjustment 1’.
(2) Adjustment of the position of bracket 28 along the opposite end of major length 15. I will call this ‘Adjustment 2’.
(3) Adjustment of the position of extension element 34 relative to upper end section 32. I will call this the ‘Adjustment 3’.
[21] Figure 2 of the Patent illustrates the hoist in a raised position. It is here annotated to show the sites of the three adjustments just referred to, which together allow positioning of the clamps at the end of the arm and thereby the positioning of the wheelchair or scooter, both vertically and horizontally:"
[15] A pivot post 10 is mounted on one side of a car boot. A lifting arm 14 is pivotally connected at 16 to a bracket 18 at the lower end of the pivot post. An actuator 20 controls the inclination of the lifting arm and is pivotally connected to a bracket 28 at the upper end of the major length 15 of the lifting arm.
[16] An upper end section 32 of the lifting arm projects at an angle to the major length 15. An extension element 34 projects from the upper end section. A cross beam 50 hangs from the end of the extension element having clamps 60 at either end. The clamps are used to support a wheelchair or scooter which can be lifted by the hoist from the exterior of the vehicle and placed into the boot and vice versa.
[17] To achieve a change in the height of the clamp, a lowermost section 13 of the lifting arm can be extended downwards - as shown, there is a telescopic extension 13 out of and down from the major length of the lifting arm. Since the lifting arm is at an angle, this will also extend the horizontal reach of the lifting arm and the clamp at its end. The upper end section 32 can be raised to be positioned close to the roof lining of the vehicle 11.
[18] To allow movement of the lowermost section 13 relative to the major length 15 of the lifting arm, there must be corresponding variation in the position of bracket 28 along the length of major length 15, i.e. the bracket slides up and down in accordance with the movement of the lowermost section 13 in and out of the major length.
[19] The overall length of the lifting arm can also be adjusted by variation in the position of the extension element 34 relative to the upper end section 32 of the lifting arm. In the form shown in Figure 1, this is another telescopic adjustment, the extension element moving in and out of the upper end section.
[20] The pivotal motion of the lifting arm relative to the pivot post allows radial motion of the hoist as a whole. Otherwise, the positioning of the cross-beam and thereby the manoeuvring of the wheelchair or scooter is achieved by varying the length and height of the hoist. This is done using three adjustments, all of which may be motor driven:
(1) Adjustment of the position of lowermost section 13 relative to the major length 15 of the lifting arm. I will call this ‘Adjustment 1’.
(2) Adjustment of the position of bracket 28 along the opposite end of major length 15. I will call this ‘Adjustment 2’.
(3) Adjustment of the position of extension element 34 relative to upper end section 32. I will call this the ‘Adjustment 3’.
[21] Figure 2 of the Patent illustrates the hoist in a raised position. It is here annotated to show the sites of the three adjustments just referred to, which together allow positioning of the clamps at the end of the arm and thereby the positioning of the wheelchair or scooter, both vertically and horizontally:"
The Claim
S.125 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:
"For the purposes of this Act an invention for a patent for which an application has been made or for which a patent has been granted shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be taken to be that specified in a claim of the specification of the application or patent, as the case may be, as interpreted by the description and any drawings contained in that specification, and the extent of the protection conferred by a patent or application for a patent shall be determined accordingly."
Autochair alleged that JGL's Auto Assist hoist infringed Claim 1 of the Patent. For readers' convenience, the claim is divided into the following integers, and the numbers refer to figure 1 above:
"[A] A hoist mechanism for loading into or unloading from a load carrying space of a vehicle, the hoist mechanism being installable in said vehicle and comprising
[B] a lifting arm (14) pivotally connected to an actuator (20), the inclination of said lifting arm being controlled by the actuator (20), wherein:
[C] when the lifting arm is in a fully raised position, a projecting upper end section (32) of a major part (15) of the lifting arm (14) extends substantially horizontally;
[D] an effective length of the projecting upper end section (32) is made variable by the provision of an extension element (34) adjustably fixed to it; and characterised in that
[E] the lifting arm (14) is variable in upstanding height by a provision of a lower end section (13) slidably connected to the major part (15) of the lifting arm (14),
[F] wherein both length and height variations are made by stepless adjustments."
[B] a lifting arm (14) pivotally connected to an actuator (20), the inclination of said lifting arm being controlled by the actuator (20), wherein:
[C] when the lifting arm is in a fully raised position, a projecting upper end section (32) of a major part (15) of the lifting arm (14) extends substantially horizontally;
[D] an effective length of the projecting upper end section (32) is made variable by the provision of an extension element (34) adjustably fixed to it; and characterised in that
[E] the lifting arm (14) is variable in upstanding height by a provision of a lower end section (13) slidably connected to the major part (15) of the lifting arm (14),
[F] wherein both length and height variations are made by stepless adjustments."
The Counterclaim
Autochair argued that the Auto Assist hoist infringed Claim 1 of the patent directly under s.60 (1) either upon a normal construction or the doctrine of equivalents, or indirectly under s.60 (2).
Direct Infringement
S.60 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, a person infringes a patent for an invention if, but only if, while the patent is in force, he does any of the following things in the United Kingdom in relation to the invention without the consent of the proprietor of the patent, that is to say—
(a) where the invention is a product, he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it whether for disposal or otherwise;
................"
As the invention is a product, s.61 (a) applies. JLG's website indicates that the company has done in relation to the Auto Assust hoist at least some of the acts specified in para (a). The only issue was whether the Auto Assist hoist fell within Claim 1 of the Patent when construed in accordance with s.125 (1) of the 1977 Act.
Construing Claim 1
S.125 (3) of the Act provides:
Art 69 (1) of the Convention requires:
The Protocol on Interpretation consists of 2 articles:
General principles
Article 69 should not be interpreted as meaning that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Nor should it be taken to mean that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patent proprietor has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties.
Article 2
Equivalents
For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by a European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in the claims."
In Eli Lilly and Co v Actavis UK Ltd and others (2017) 157 BMLR 96, [2017] RPC 21, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2017] Bus LR 1731, [2018] 1 All ER 171, [2017] UKSC 48, Lord Neuberger said at para [54]:
Normal Interpretation
“If the issue was whether a feature embodied in an alleged infringement which fell outside the primary, literal or a contextual meaning of a descriptive word or phrase in the claim (‘a variant’) was nevertheless within its language as properly interpreted, the court should ask itself the following three questions:
(1) Does the variant have a material effect upon the way the invention works? If yes, the variant is outside the claim. If no -
(2) Would this (ie that the variant had no material effect) have been obvious at the date of publication of the patent to a reader skilled in the art? If no, the variant is outside the claim. If yes -
(3) Would the reader skilled in the art nevertheless have understood from the language of the claim that the patentee intended that strict compliance with the primary meaning was an essential requirement of the invention? If yes, the variant is outside the claim.
On the other hand, a negative answer to the last question would lead to the conclusion that the patentee was intending the word or phrase to have not a literal, but a figurative meaning (the figure being a form of synecdoche or metonymy) denoting a class of things which included the variant and the literal meaning, the latter being perhaps the most perfect, best-known or striking example of the class.”
Skilled Addressee
At para [22] of Eli Lilley v Activis, Lord Neuberger noted:
"A patent is interpreted on the basis that it is addressed to a person or group of persons who is or are likely to have a practical interest in the claimed invention, ie through the eyes of a person or persons skilled in the art."
Judge Hacon stated at para [3] of his judgment in Jeff Gosling that the person skilled in the art in this case would be a design engineer familiar with hoists of the type claimed and that he or she would have knowledge of how they are installed and used in practice. The parties also agreed that "stepped securing arrangements (e.g. hole/locking device) were known as were compression/friction arrangements (e.g. grub screw on a bar)."
Stepped Arrangements and Stepless Adjustments
The judge said at para [13]:
"The ‘stepped’ arrangements referred to what would typically involve a locking device being placed into spaced holes along one of the components. This way the components may be locked at fixed positions relative to each other, the available fixed positions depending on how the holes are spaced. The ‘compression/friction’ arrangement typically relies on a grub screw in a first component being turned and pressed against the side of the second component so that the components become fixed relative to each other due to friction between the grub screw and the second component. This arrangement allows relative spacing of the components without being limited to fixed alternative positions."
A requirement of Integer F of Claim 1 was that both length and height variations should be made by stepless adjustments. Autochair argued that the Claim can be read in such a way that those variations need not be stepless. The judge rejected that submission. When Claim 1 is read in conjunction with the specification, it is clear that at least two of those variations would have to be stepless. As the Apex Assist operated differently, it did not infringe the Patent on a normal construction.
At para [22] of Eli Lilley v Activis, Lord Neuberger noted:
"A patent is interpreted on the basis that it is addressed to a person or group of persons who is or are likely to have a practical interest in the claimed invention, ie through the eyes of a person or persons skilled in the art."
Judge Hacon stated at para [3] of his judgment in Jeff Gosling that the person skilled in the art in this case would be a design engineer familiar with hoists of the type claimed and that he or she would have knowledge of how they are installed and used in practice. The parties also agreed that "stepped securing arrangements (e.g. hole/locking device) were known as were compression/friction arrangements (e.g. grub screw on a bar)."
Stepped Arrangements and Stepless Adjustments
The judge said at para [13]:
"The ‘stepped’ arrangements referred to what would typically involve a locking device being placed into spaced holes along one of the components. This way the components may be locked at fixed positions relative to each other, the available fixed positions depending on how the holes are spaced. The ‘compression/friction’ arrangement typically relies on a grub screw in a first component being turned and pressed against the side of the second component so that the components become fixed relative to each other due to friction between the grub screw and the second component. This arrangement allows relative spacing of the components without being limited to fixed alternative positions."
A requirement of Integer F of Claim 1 was that both length and height variations should be made by stepless adjustments. Autochair argued that the Claim can be read in such a way that those variations need not be stepless. The judge rejected that submission. When Claim 1 is read in conjunction with the specification, it is clear that at least two of those variations would have to be stepless. As the Apex Assist operated differently, it did not infringe the Patent on a normal construction.
Doctrine of Equivalents
At para [66] of his judgment in Eli Lilly, Lord Neuberger suggested the following questions to determine whether a variant falls within a claim interpreted in accordance with art 2 of the Protocol:
"i) Notwithstanding that it is not within the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent, does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention, ie the inventive concept revealed by the patent?
ii) Would it be obvious to the person skilled in the art, reading the patent at the priority date, but knowing that the variant achieves substantially the same result as the invention, that it does so in substantially the same way as the invention?
iii) Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patentee nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an essential requirement of the invention?
In order to establish infringement in a case where there is no literal infringement, a patentee would have to establish that the answer to the first two questions was 'yes' and that the answer to the third question was 'no'."
"i) Notwithstanding that it is not within the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent, does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention, ie the inventive concept revealed by the patent?
ii) Would it be obvious to the person skilled in the art, reading the patent at the priority date, but knowing that the variant achieves substantially the same result as the invention, that it does so in substantially the same way as the invention?
iii) Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patentee nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an essential requirement of the invention?
In order to establish infringement in a case where there is no literal infringement, a patentee would have to establish that the answer to the first two questions was 'yes' and that the answer to the third question was 'no'."
Autochair argued inter alia that stepped adjustments can be close enough to the same high degree of adjustability that they are equivalent to stepless. His Honour rejected that argument. The advantage of the inventive concept could not be achieved if height and length variations were by 10mm increments. It followed that the Apex Assist did not achieve substantially the same result. Autochair's case on equivalents failed at the first hurdle.
Indirect Infringement
Turning to Autochair's allegations of indirect infringement, the judge referred to s.60 (2) of the Patents Act 1977:
His Honour observed at para [34] of his judgment that the main dispute on indirect infringement turned on HGL's actual or constructive knowledge of the use to which fitters would put the components for the Apex Assist hoist.
For guidance on this issue, Judge Hacon referred to para [53] of Lord Justice Jacob's judgment in KCI Licensing Inc v Smith & Nephew plc. [2011] FSR 8, (2011) 117 BMLR 81, [2010] EWCA Civ 1260:
"i) The required intention is to put the invention into effect. The question is what the supplier knows or ought to know about the intention of the person who is in a position to put the invention into effect - the person at the end of the supply chain, [108].
ii) It is enough if the supplier knows (or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances) that some ultimate users will intend to use or adapt the “means” so as to infringe, [107(i)] and [114].
iii) There is no requirement that the intention of the individual ultimate user must be known to the defendant at the moment of the alleged infringement, [124].
iv) Whilst it is the intention of the ultimate user which matters, a future intention of a future ultimate user is enough if that is what one would expect in all the circumstances, [125].
v) The knowledge and intention requirements are satisfied if, at the time of supply or offer to supply, the supplier knows, or it obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that ultimate users will intend to put the invention into effect. This has to be proved on the usual standard of the balance of probabilities. It is not enough merely that the means are suitable for putting the invention into effect (for that is a separate requirement), but it is likely to be the case where the supplier proposes or recommends or even indicates the possibility of such use in his promotional material, [131]."
For guidance on this issue, Judge Hacon referred to para [53] of Lord Justice Jacob's judgment in KCI Licensing Inc v Smith & Nephew plc. [2011] FSR 8, (2011) 117 BMLR 81, [2010] EWCA Civ 1260:
"i) The required intention is to put the invention into effect. The question is what the supplier knows or ought to know about the intention of the person who is in a position to put the invention into effect - the person at the end of the supply chain, [108].
ii) It is enough if the supplier knows (or it is obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances) that some ultimate users will intend to use or adapt the “means” so as to infringe, [107(i)] and [114].
iii) There is no requirement that the intention of the individual ultimate user must be known to the defendant at the moment of the alleged infringement, [124].
iv) Whilst it is the intention of the ultimate user which matters, a future intention of a future ultimate user is enough if that is what one would expect in all the circumstances, [125].
v) The knowledge and intention requirements are satisfied if, at the time of supply or offer to supply, the supplier knows, or it obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, that ultimate users will intend to put the invention into effect. This has to be proved on the usual standard of the balance of probabilities. It is not enough merely that the means are suitable for putting the invention into effect (for that is a separate requirement), but it is likely to be the case where the supplier proposes or recommends or even indicates the possibility of such use in his promotional material, [131]."
Autochair argued that fitters could disregard JLG's factory instructions because they would see the advantage of using the patented method to obtain greater flexibility for Adjustment 3. As supplied, the Apex Assist was a means relating to an essential element of the invention and the invention would be implemented whenever securing by compression/friction was used for Adjustment 3. JLG replied that departing from those instructions would void the warranty and product insurance. Autochair responded that as many as 30% of the installations would not have been fitted in accordance with JLG's instructions.
The judge concluded at [55] that "it would have been obvious both to JGL and to a reasonable person in the circumstances that relevant fitters would all implement Adjustment 3 by tightening the grub screws into the blind holes. Consequently, it would not have been obvious that relevant fitters will intend to put the invention into effect when fitting the Apex Assist."
He therefore rejected Autochair's counterclaim for indirect infringement.
Comment
There is a lot in this judgment, though there were some gaps in the interpretation of s.125 (1) of the Act and art 69 of the Convention, normal construction of claims and the doctrine of equivalents that I have had to fill in this case note. This case touches several important issues, such as indirect infringement and declarations of non-infringement that do not arise every day. Anyone wishing to discuss this case note may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.
Comments