Skip to content

Collingwood Lighting Limited v Aurora Limited, Patents Court (Chancery Division), High Court of Justice, London, 10 February 2014, Case No. [2014] EWHC 228 (Pat)

Mr Justice Roth of the Patents Court has found for the claimant, Collingwood, against Aurora in an action for infringement under UK Patent No. 2475649.

Collingwood contended that Aurora infringed its Patent for fire resistant LED downlighting. The Patent covers a lighting unit with a solid state lighting element and a fire resistant housing for fitting into an aperture in building partitions. Collingwood’s product manufactured according to the Patent was launched in May 2009, under the name “FireLED”. Aurora’s products, which were found to infringe the Patent, are those under the Aurora I-9 range. Aurora also introduced a redesign, which, in the event that Aurora should lose on validity and the I-9 range found to infringe, was intended to avoid such infringement.


Aurora counterclaimed that the Patent was invalid on grounds of anticipation and obviousness, but that if the Patent was found to be valid, the products complained of did not infringe. Alternatively, Aurora sought a declaration that a redesign of its product did not infringe the Patent.

The decision turned on its facts. Following an assessment of the Patent, the evidence and the prior art, Roth J found the Patent to be valid, and both the existing product range and redesign to infringe such Patent (applying the so-called ‘Protocol questions’ in respect of the redesign). Furthermore, Aurora did not satisfy the conditions of section 62(1) of the Patents Act 1977 so as to preclude the recovery of damages against it for infringement, with Roth J finding on a balance of probabilities that Aurora ought reasonably to have been aware of at least one of the advertisements promoting the FireLED which should have led them to check for any existing or pending patents.

Read the entire decision (in English) here.

Head note: Scott Parker