I think the story is probably something like:

* AutoStore sold a solution to Ocado

* Ocado started modifying their own installation. AutoStore gave them the rights to do this naively thinking it was for their own use.

* Ocado started aggressively patenting their own modifications.

* Ocado then decides it’s going to build everything themselves, and also start selling their own version of the solution and compete directly with Autostore.

* Then the legal battle begins!

Broadly the main thing in contention is that Ocado patented the concept of the robot sitting above a single cell (ie tote). Autostore thinks this is obvious and shouldn’t have been allowed - their main reason for usually implementing a lower robot that sits across two cells is that it’s more reliable (lower centre of mass, simplified mechanics) but that they have now been blocked from just doing a smaller design of their original invention.

Autostore were probably naive at the time (they were still reasonably new to the automation market) and Ocado definitely had better patent lawyers - or at least as they were UK based had a better grip of UK patent law.