Prevayl Innovations Limited v Whoop Inc
Decision date: 27 February 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 399 (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
Prevayl sued Whoop for infringement of GB 2 589 947, a "smart bra" patent claiming that all of the sensor assembly is located in a side region and not in the underband. The court construed "sensor assembly" as the entirety of the sensors used (excluding the electronics module unless claimed), found claims 1–2 novel over US 845 but obvious in light of US 845 combined with PCT 853 and therefore invalid for lack of inventive step, and held that supplying Whoop 4.0 modules would have constituted indirect infringement under s.60(2) had the patent been valid.
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 judgment reasons that when claim language requires "all of the sensor assembly" to be in a side region, that phrase refers to the entirety of the sensors used (not the electronics module unless the claim expressly includes it). For s.60(2) indirect infringement, liability arises where (i) the supplier provides a means relating to an essential element because it contributes to implementing the technical teaching of the invention, (ii) the supplied item is suitable to put the invention into effect when used with other components, and (iii) it is known or obvious to the supplier that some users will use it in that way.
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 court observed (obiter) that simultaneous supply of multiple types of means can each constitute indirect infringement and that considerations like independent commercial existence or subsidiarity of a part are not determinative; the correct question is the contribution the part makes to the technical teaching. It also indicated that concerns about multiple infringements are matters for a later accounting/damages inquiry.