Patent decision

BL number

O/0110/24

Concerning rights in

GB2577960

Hearing Officer

Mr H Jones

Decision date

14 February 2024

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Bridle IP Ltd v Anthony Thomas James

Provisions discussed

S1(1), S1(2), S72

Keywords

Excluded fields (allowed), Inventive step, Revocation

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The claimant requested revocation of the patent on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step over the prior art and was excluded as a mere presentation of information. The invention relates to a system for tracking the location of maintenance personnel working on or near railway tracks. Maintenance workers carry GPS tracking devices and information about their location is transmitted to a central location. A manager at the central location can view location on a digital map and can assign a virtual geographic perimeter (or geofence) for each worker. When a worker inadvertently leaves their geofence, an alert is triggered and an alarm signal or notification is sent to the worker. The map displays ELR mileage and chain information as an additional layer of detail.

The hearing officer found that a map display of location was implicitly disclosed in the closest prior art. The only difference between the prior art and the invention was the inclusion of ELR information, which was found to be a standard in railway maps and within the common general knowledge of the skilled person. The invention was found to lack inventive step. In terms of excluded matter, the hearing officer found that the contribution was a system for tracking location and generating an alarm, which was not a mere presentation of information. The patent was found to be invalid and was ordered to be revoked.

Full decision O/0110/24 233Kb