James Abrahams QC appeared as lead counsel for the Defendant (“NOCO”) in proceedings brought by the Claimant (“Carku”) to revoke NOCO’s patent for lack of novelty and inventive step. Carku brought a further claim for damages, alleging NOCO had made groundless threats to Amazon through its UK complaints procedure in relation to Carku’s listed products. NOCO counterclaimed for patent infringement and asserted that the complaints made to Amazon did not constitute threats and/or were justified on the basis that the patent was valid and infringed.
The patent related to battery-powered car jump starters with NOCO’s infringement claim based on the doctrine of equivalence. Carku’s invalidity attack was based on three pieces of prior art: Krieger, Richardson and Projecta.
Meade J held that the patent was invalid and that NOCO was liable for making unjustified threats. The judge rejected Carku’s anticipation attack. On obviousness, he held that the differences between the patent claims and Projecta and, separately, Richardson represented non-inventive implementation choices, rendering the patent claims obvious. Regarding threats, the judge held that the communications sent to Amazon were threats of patent infringement against Amazon in the event that it did not delist Carku’s products and threats to sue third party distributors of those products.