JCB v Manitou [2024] EWCA Civ 276
This was an appeal from the decision of the trial judge to revoke JCB’s EP(UK) Patent 2 263 965 for a control system for a telehandler. The control system is designed to stop the telehandler becoming unstable by preventing the telehandler arm from being moved into a position at which it causes the machine to tip about the front axle. The invention of the Patent is to switch the control system off when the machine is moving to prevent false indications of instability and allow the operator to move the telehandler arm at will.
At the trial there were three patents in suit. One was held valid and infringed and two (of which the Patent was one) would have been infringed but were held to be invalid. After the trial the parties settled their differences and the appeal was pursued by JCB unopposed by Manitou solely to restore the validity of the Patent.
The trial judge had held that the invention of the Patent was obvious over a prior disclosure in a Japanese patent application (Aichi) of a mobile work platform of a kind often called a cherrypicker. The control system of Aichi has two operating methods. It switches between them depending on whether the platform is stationary or moving. The trial judge had held that the control system in Aichi if applied to a telehandler would meet the requirements of the claim.
Following the procedure addressed in Halliburton’s Patent [2006] EWCA Civ 185 the Comptroller was directed by the Court to appear to assist the Court.
The Court of Appeal reviewing the evidence on the operation of the Aichi control system and held, contrary to the finding below, that because the Aichi control system remained in operation when the machine is moving it did not meet the requirement of the claim of the Patent that the system be disabled. Consequently, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s finding that the Patent was invalid.
Michael Silverleaf KC instructed by Baker & McKenzie appeared for the appellant, JCB.
Anna Edwards-Stuart KC instructed by Mills & Reeve appeared for the Comptroller.
Manitou was not represented on the appeal but was represented at the trial by Brian Nicholson KC and Kyra Nezami instructed by Marks & Clark