IPEC Patent, Trade Mark, Design, Copyright Case Law Review: 2025

It seems like just last week I wrote up the 2024 activities of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. In fact it’s been a whole year, it’s nearly 2026, and the IPEC has been busy.

Last year we had just eight published final judgments, covering trade marks, passing off, designs, and three copyright cases tackling that tricky question “but is it art?”. I commented at the time on the lack of patent cases, and some had expressed the view that the IPEC just wasn’t up to patent cases any more. Well the balance has been redressed, with five whole patent judgments this year. Let’s start with those.

Summary of the IPEC case: Prevayl Innovations v Whoop (Patent)

Prevayl Innovations v Whoop is an interesting case about a simple invention. A “smart bra” is a bra which incorporates sensors which can measure, for example, the heart’s electrical activity during exercise. The characterising feature of the Claimant’s patent was the location of the sensors — the claim required “wherein all of the sensor assembly is provided in one of the side regions and is not provided in the underband”. It’s a short claim and a simple idea. The Defendants had no doubt done a good search, but hadn’t found anything with all of the sensor assembly just in that position. One prior art document showed sensors all over the place for a 12-lead ECG. Another had a sensor perhaps roughly in the right position, but the bra was not a sports bra and so did not have an underband. It’s a familiar frustration when trying to invalidate a patent and just not quite getting to a novelty-destroying document. In this case though, it was close enough — HHJ Hacon found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step.

Given the invalid patent then, what was said about infringement might be taken with a pinch of salt. But it’s the first of two cases this year on the issue of so-called “contributory” or “indirect” infringement. Whoop admitted that (if the patent were valid) their bra together with their sensor module would infringe, but their sensor module did not have to be used with a bra. In fact, it was most commonly worn on a wrist strap. Did supply of the sensor modules alone infringe? “Yes”, said the judge, it being enough that at least some ultimate users will intend to use it to put the invention into effect. However, the damages would always be limited to loss caused by Whoop’s working of the invention, which might be limited to the proportion which would actually be put into bras. The patent being invalid, whether this is right or wrong is all academic.

Summary of the IPEC case: Jeff Gosling Limited v Autochair Limited (Patent)

But in our next case, contributory infringement was in issue again, and this time the patent was admitted as valid. Jeff Gosling Limited v Autochair Limited is about a hoist for use with a vehicle. Commonly these hoists are used for loading and unloading a wheelchair or mobility scooter. The contributory infringement point arose because the allegedly infringing hoist could be put together in a way which would have fallen within the patent claim, but only by an installer who ignored clear warnings given in the instructions in a way which both experts witnesses ended up agreeing would be “irresponsible”. Such “mavericks” do not count, apparently even if the supplier knows about them. HHJ Hacon, who heard both of these cases, has set out a neat four-point summary of the law on indirect infringement as he sees it. It will be interesting to see how influential this proves to be.

Apart from the indirect infringement issue, there was an unsuccessful argument by the patentee that, either on a “normal” construction of the claim or according to the doctrine of equivalents, adjustability in steps of 10mm was close enough to the “stepless adjustment” required by the claim. 10mm is not a very large step, though the evidence was that true stepless adjustment would “come in a lot easier”. “Stepless”, in this case, meant what it said, or at any rate something finer than a 10mm step. There was no infringement.

One of the striking things about Jeff Gosling v Autochair is the lack of any mention at all of prior art in the judgment.  It isn’t unheard of for validity to be admitted of course, but given that the case ultimately fell on whether a 10mm step was small enough to be “stepless” (would 5mm, or 1mm, have done it?), the lack of any sort of a “squeeze” argument is remarkable. I do wonder whether this patent was perhaps a bit narrower than it needed to be.

Summary of the IPEC case: D.W. Windsor Limited v Urbis Schreder Ltd (Patent)

Our next case is the opposite way around – in D.W. Windsor Limited v Urbis Schreder Ltd, infringement of three patents was admitted, subject to the argument that they were all invalid for lack of novelty or inventive step. Again the invention was fairly simple – a light fitment used, for example, on railway footbridges where a pathway needs to be lit at night, but where it is desirable to avoid any fittings which might be used as a foothold for misguided adventurers to climb up the sides of the walls. One prior art disclosure showed an illuminated handrail, with a separate sloped “roof” mounted above it. Would the skilled person combine that feature into the light fitting itself? No, said the Judge, the skilled designer of lighting supports would not be thinking about anti-climb features. Patent valid.

Summary of the IPEC case: Well Lead Medical Co., Limited v C J Medical Limited (Patent)

Marching onwards through the patent cases, Well Lead Medical Co., Limited v C J Medical Limited was about devices used to remove kidney stones and gallstones. This time both validity and infringement were in issue, though infringement was a short point once the correct construction of the claims had been sorted out. That construction was complicated by the fact that something of a half-hearted effort had been made to bring the description into conformity of the claims before grant of the European patent. There were “embodiments of the present invention” and “embodiments of the disclosure not forming part of the present invention”, which were clear one way or the other, but then also just “embodiments” – what to make of those? The Judge seems to have taken a fairly pragmatic view of things – the claim was clear enough that two parts had to have “the same” diameter, and at some point during prosecution some attempt had been made to make the description consistent with that. “The same” had some “limited leeway” indicated in the specification – a ±5% manufacturing tolerance. Once that was sorted out, one of the five products sold by the Defendant was found to infringe, having only a 0.2% difference between the relevant dimensions.

Summary of the IPEC case: Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Limited (Patent)

Finally on patents, Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Limited is about an invention that sounds like good fun. You race a real kart around a real track, like go-karting, but you can hit projected “virtual” obstacles which cause the kart to react, like in Mario Kart. For instance, if you drive over a banana, the kart will spin. I’m willing to bet that the entire legal team on both sides insisted on trying it out for themselves. Unfortunately for the Claimants, it was such good fun that they couldn’t resist demonstrating it in public before they filed the patent application. That didn’t matter, they tried to plead – while everybody could observe the fun, no-one would guess there was a server with software that coordinates image projection with the location of the kart, among other technical bits and pieces. It didn’t wash. We have to imagine, remember, that a skilled person has turned up. A skilled person is a very special sort of person who thinks about these things even while watching a real person getting hit by a Mario Kart rocket. Oh and some MIT students had done the same thing before with remote control cars. And Disney had put it in a prior-published patent application as well.

So before we leave patents, what can we take from all this? Well obviously, the IPEC can hear patent cases, and this year parties seem to have been prepared to let them. Compromises to the short trials in the IPEC system are apparent – in D.W. Windsor it appears the Claimant might have slightly regretted an earlier admission on construction (but they ended up winning anyway) and in Battlekart the judge commented that a single expert on each side caused problems where a cross-disciplinary skilled team was the imaginary “skilled person”. To me, there is sometimes an element of “rough justice”, where short arguments which are less than fully reasoned are used to reach important conclusions. But I also see parties and their lawyers engaging with the system, slimming down their cases, and bringing just the issues that matter to the trial. Nobody could complain about that, could they?

Summary of the IPEC case: Joshua Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd (Copyright)

Onwards then, to copyright. The first IPEC judgment of the year, Joshua Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd was about copyright, or alleged copyright, in a TV format. English courts have never quite said that it is impossible for a “TV format” to be protected as a copyright work, but at the same time no claim of this nature ever appears to have succeeded. This case was no exception, but something tells me that Joshua Rinkoff will not be the last person to give it a go.

Summary of the IPEC case: Shantell Martin v Bodegas San Huberto (Copyright)

Up next, Shantell Martin v Bodegas San Huberto. The Claimant here is apparently quite a famous artist, and the work in question was a wall drawing she created at the SKG Museum in Buffalo, New York. The unauthorised copy had been made on wine labels, and looking at the pictures I think the Judge was clearly correct here to say there was infringement (the colours have been added to show the similar segments):

However, we learn that after being contacted by the Claimant, the Defendant made sure to change the label. Equally sound is the Judge’s decision that the second and third labels did not infringe any copyright in the work:

The Claimant had apparently demanded US$200,000 in open correspondence. Quantum is not yet determined, but the Judge made some helpful comments to encourage the parties to settle. The total profits on the products carrying the labels which did infringe came to £924, and we know an undertaking had apparently been offered not to sell any more. I wonder if perhaps the Defendants had made a Part 36 offer, because this whole thing looks like a case of a good claim, but a modest one, which really should have settled.

Summary of the IPEC case: Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Limited (Copyright)

Our next case is a fine example of a recurrent theme of IPEC litigation. Members of rock bands are all obviously far too cool to enter into any written agreements about ownership of IP. In Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Limited the works in issue were various drawings and photographs used as logos and album covers. There were six drawings and two photographs in total. On the evidence, the Claimant was the author and owner of four of the drawings, the Defendant of one of them, and for the sixth, known as the “At War with Satan” design, neither discharged their burden of proof. Although one witness’ evidence was preferred, it was just not detailed enough and all too uncertain to say who had done this drawing in 1983.

Summary of the IPEC case: Natasha Courtenay-Smith v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited (Trade Mark)

Another messy ownership situation turns up in the first of our trade mark judgments – Natasha Courtenay-Smith v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited. A common mistake is to apply for a trade mark in the name of the company, and then a bit later on dissolve the company without assigning the trade mark out of the company first. It’s an expensive pain, but if caught quickly enough can usually be sorted out by applying to restore the company to the register. Lawyers appear to have noticed the problem here and taken the right action in relation to the company, but there was a trap waiting for them – the trade mark came up for renewal in the period during which the company did not exist. The (purported) application to renew was a nullity, because it was not made (and could not have been made) by the proprietor of the trade mark. This was an unforced error since the company did restore in time to renew in the six-month grace period, but the trade mark was revokable for non-use anyway.

Summary of the IPEC cases: Wise Payments Limited v With Wise; Easygroup Limited v Jaybank Leisure; Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited (Trade Marks)

In other trade mark news, Wise Payments Limited v With Wise follows another common pattern – two companies set out to do quite different things, but then each expanded its services over time, and then things become very confusing. Customers are confused and ring the wrong company. The call handlers seem to get even more confused and advise callers that the contact they have had from the other company is a phishing scam. I am slightly confused as to who won. Some better trade mark searching might have made things less confusing for everyone. In Easygroup Limited v Jaybank Leisure, Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou is still causing trouble, this time for a vehicle rental business called “EASIHIRE”. Unfortunately for Sir Stelios, quickly setting up a website called “easyHire” which just links to an existing car hire business you own, trading under a different brand, does not constitute genuine use of a mark. Trade mark invalid, claim dismissed. And in Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited, it was agreed that “dryrobe” had become a “household name”, and there was evidence that the public at least sometimes used it as a category term – i.e. descriptive of the type of goods rather than as a brand name. Despite that it “was able to, and did, still carry out the essential function [of a trade mark]”. The mark was valid, and infringed by use of “D-ROBE”.

Summary of the IPEC case: Babek International Limited v Iceland Foods Limited (Trade Mark)

Finally in trade marks, Babek International Limited v Iceland Foods Limited was a hopeless application for summary judgment. Iceland claimed Babek’s mark was invalid because the written description did not quite match the representation of the mark. The high point of Iceland’s ambition is probably in their complaint that “the visual representation shows an ellipse, not an oval as stated in the written description”. HHJ Hacon regarded this as “fairly high grade pedantry”.

Summary of the IPEC case: Shantell Martin v Bodegas San Huberto (Part 2 – Passing Off)

There was also a finding of passing off in relation to those copyright-infringing wine labels in Shantell Martin v Bodegas San Huberto. Given that the second and third labels did not infringe copyright, could they still create a misrepresentation given the wrongful association created by the first labels? It’s an argument that might work from time to time, but in this case no, on the facts the bottles were unlikely to be on the shelf side-by-side, and even if they were, they were different enough from each other that they would not mislead.

Summary of the IPEC case: Sonia Edwards v Boohoo.com (Unregistered Design Rights)

Lastly, our solitary design case this year. In Sonia Edwards v Boohoo.com, the IPEC resolved a long-running dispute over the alleged infringement of a series of five garment designs protected by Unregistered Design Rights (UDRs). Edwards, representing herself, presented no formal design documents, instead relying on photographs of the garments themselves. It is difficult to know whether the claim could have been better put in this respect. Some claimed features were described in relation to a wearer’s body, but the judge insisted that a design cannot be defined by reference to the way it interacts with the wearer. We think this must be correct – a way of wearing a bikini is simply not a feature of the shape or configuration of the bikini. This was a complicated and interesting case, and in many ways it is a shame that the Claimant was not represented because some of these points might have been explored more thoroughly. In the end though, the allegation that Boohoo had copied just failed on the evidence.

So that’s it, in 2025 we’ve had patents, copyright, trade marks, passing off, and designs. The IPEC really is a fine forum for small-ish cases across the IP spectrum. Probably nothing groundbreaking, but unsurprising lessons include: the words you put in your patent claim do limit the protection you get; disclosing your invention before you file your patent is a bad idea;  you should carefully consider the real value of the claim you are making (and if you are being sued on a good claim but for far too much, make a Part 36 offer); and if you’re starting a rock band, think about a written agreement. Nobody is going to listen, of course. We look forward to hearing about it all over again in 2026.