AP Racing Ltd v Alcon Components Ltd

Decision date: 15 February 2017

Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 248 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Second Action concerned whether eight Alcon brake caliper models infringed claim 1 of UK Patent No. 2,451,690, focusing on construction of “profiling”, what constitutes a “peripheral stiffening band” (PSB) and the required asymmetry. The court held “profiling” means shaping (not necessarily material removal); a PSB is a distinct band of material appreciably beyond ordinary limb material that stiffens and interconnects outer lateral end regions; asymmetry is assessed visually against the specification and figures rather than by strict measurement. Applying that construction, one model (CAR 9549Y73) infringed and the other seven did not.

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

Where claim wording is not a term of art, construction is guided by the specification and figures; “profiling” can mean shaping without requiring material removal; a PSB is a peripheral band of material appreciably beyond and distinct from limb material that materially stiffens and interconnects outer lateral end regions; asymmetry in the claim is to be assessed visually by reference to the specification/figures rather than by precise mathematical test.

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 judge observed that structural optimisation software was not part of the common general knowledge (relevant to earlier inventive step findings) and noted that, although distinguishing a PSB from limb material can be imprecise and fact-sensitive, visual clues (openings, webs, etc.) typically enable the skilled person and the court to make the assessment required by the claim.