Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA & Anor

Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA & Anor

The injunction should not be limited to claims 3 to 9 as claim 3 is wider and the process of claims 1 and 2 was invoked; no stay is justified as there are no exceptional reasons; no special proviso for High Court application is warranted; no order for delivery up is appropriate as there are no vessels within jurisdiction; no reduction in costs for dropped allegations as costs were trivial and overlapped; higher scale costs apply as per statute; interim payment of £1.25 million is appropriate; permission to appeal is refused.

Parties
Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant: Rockwater Ltd; Respondents/defendants/part 20 Claimants: Technip France SA and Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Judgment on Post Judgment Order and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders on injunction, costs, and interim payment made; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Delivery Up, Non Infringement Declarations
Intellectual Property Patents Injunctions Costs Stay of Proceedings Delivery Up Non Infringement Declarations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rockwater Ltd

Appellant/claimant/part 20 Defendant

Technip France SA and Another

Respondents/defendants/part 20 Claimants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Judgment on Post Judgment Order and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunction should be limited to certain patent claims
  2. 2 Whether there should be a stay of injunction or costs assessment
  3. 3 Whether a special proviso for High Court application should be included

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should not be limited to claims 3 to 9 as claim 3 is wider and the process of claims 1 and 2 was invoked; no stay is justified as there are no exceptional reasons; no special proviso for High Court application is warranted; no order for delivery up is appropriate as there are no vessels within jurisdiction; no reduction in costs for dropped allegations as costs were trivial and overlapped; higher scale costs apply as per statute; interim payment of £1.25 million is appropriate; permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders on injunction, costs, and interim payment made; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Injunction granted not limited to claims 3 to 9; covers all relevant claims.
  • No stay of injunction, financial inquiry, or costs assessment.