Adolf Nissen Elektrobau GmbH & Co KG v Horizont Group GmbH
Decision date: 18 December 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] EWHC 3522 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This is a UK IPEC revocation action in which Nissen challenged Horizont's UK patent for a vehicle‑mounted mobile warning device forming flashing directional arrows and an alternative constant‑colour warning cross. The court construes "mobile warning device" as vehicle‑mounted when in use but not necessarily used while the vehicle is moving, and finds that a UK skilled person would have implemented two‑colour LED spotlights and adapted prior art to display a constant red cross. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 were held obvious over DE007 and Nissen's own publicly available board and the patent was declared invalid; Pederson did not render the claims obvious.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The dispositive ratio is that, for a UK patent, the skilled person is to be treated as UK‑based so that national regulatory practice and familiar signalling conventions form part of the common general knowledge; accordingly, regulatory or safety considerations do not prevent a finding of technical obviousness where the skilled person would have considered and been able to implement the modification (here implementing two‑colour LEDs and a constant red cross), making the asserted claims obvious over the cited prior art.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggests (obiter) that classifying a particular prior art item as a "good" or "bad" starting point may be distracting, and that evidence about foreign regulatory practice can explain why a specification is drafted a certain way without altering what forms the UK skilled person's common general knowledge.