Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH & Co KG v Horizont Group GmbH [2019] EWHC 3522 (IPEC)
This was a claim for revocation of a patent for a mobile warning device for road traffic, consisting of a board to be mounted on a vehicle having an arrangement of lights. The only ground of invalidity was obviousness over three items of prior art: two patent specifications and the prior use of one of Nissen’s traffic signs. Horizont asserted the independent validity of four claims. The court held that each of those four claims was obvious over one of the patent specifications and the prior use. Essentially, the difference between the prior art and the patented device was that the latter could display a constant red cross as well as and by way of alternative to, flashing yellow arrows. It was obvious to modify the prior art devices to include this capability because a red constant cross and flashing yellow arrows were conventional road signals in the UK. The skilled person would have known how to achieve the additional capability as part of his common general knowledge using LEDs of two different colours in the spotlights.
Chris Aikens acted as sole counsel for the successful applicant for revocation.