Supponor Limited v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396
This appeal saw Supponor seeking to overturn a judgment of Meade J which found AIM Sport’s patent EP (UK) 3 295 663 B1 to be valid and infringed by Supponor’s virtual overlay advertising technology. Supponor appealed on construction, obviousness, infringement, and on a procedural point which they referred to as the Promptu point.
The Court of Appeal held that Meade J had erred in his construction of the claim, holding that it was sufficiently broad to include a prior art reference called Nevatie. However, prior to trial conditional amendments had been proposed which the Judge had considered would have the effect of narrowing the claim to exclude Nevatie in the event he was wrong on construction. The Court of Appeal upheld Meade J on the construction of the claim amendment, and therefore permitted AIM Sport to amend the claim. The claim as amended was considered to be both valid and infringed.
The Court of Appeal gave specific consideration to the Promptu point, rejecting Supponor’s contention that AIM Sport’s procedural concession before trial regarding the validity of other independent claims of the patent had an impact on AIM Sport’s ability to contend that the remaining claim was valid. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal gives cautionary advice about the need for careful framing of procedural concessions so as to avoid issues later in proceedings.
Brian Nicholson KC, and David Ivison instructed by Ignition Law appeared for the appellant, Supponor Limited
Edward Cronan instructed by Powell Gilbert appeared for the respondent, AIM Sport