link. And here's a link to the patent in question
This judgement has some interesting snippets. It is useful to read as a lesson in claim construction. Some well-known rules are emphasized.
A practice note for litigators is set out in paragraphs 125 to 127.
This case reinforces the principle that the claims must always be interpreted in light of the specification read as whole. See for example paragraphs 144 to 152. Four very useful points of claim construction are set out in paragraph 175.
Here's an example (paragraph 201): "In my view, the skilled addressee would understand the description of the invention to relate to the measurement of loads or forces at the suspension, and would apply that understanding to his or her reading of claim 1. In cross-examination Dr Blanksby gave evidence which indicates that he approached the claim in precisely this way, that is to say, having read the Specification as a whole, he formed the view that it was “not the intention of the patent” to measure loads or forces at the tyre/road interface. I think Dr Blanksby’s reading of the claim is fully borne out by the description of the invention in the Specification."