Daniel Alexander KC appeared for the successful respondents (“AIM”) in an appeal arising from a patent trial in January 2023. At trial, Meade J found a patent owned by AIM (“the Patent”) valid and infringed by a system used by the appellant (“Supponor”).
The Patent claimed a method for digitally overlaying images onto TV broadcasts, for example overlaying advertising onto billboards at sporting events. This permits different advertising to be shown to that in the venue when an event is broadcast in different territories. Specifically, the claimed method addressed the problem of an “occluding object”, such as a player or a ball, which blocks the camera’s view of a billboard.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Birss LJ, with whom Phillips and Males LJJ agreed, differed from Meade J as to construction of the main claim but that did not result in a different outcome overall because an amendment narrowed the claim in a way that left the claim valid and infringed.
The Court also gave general guidance on the so-called “Promptu” issue, rejecting the defendants’ argument that any relevant concession before trial to limit the issues had been made or that it affected the remainder of the case.
The Court thought that it would be unfortunate to take an approach which discouraged patentees from making sensible case management proposals about what claims were in issue other than the main ones for fear of an unforeseen consequence and that litigants generally should be encouraged to streamline cases to focus on what really matters, rather than fighting every point. The Court thought it undesirable for a pragmatic decision to abandon some points to lead to arguments about the knock-on effect of the decision on the remaining points which were maintained since litigants (not just in patent cases) would be deterred from adopting a sensible approach: trials would take longer contrary to the interests of justice.