Coflexip S.A. & Anor v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd. & Ors

Coflexip S.A. & Anor v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd. & Ors

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that Stolt was estopped by cause of action estoppel (as to the Magnus Swift contract) and issue estoppel (as to the other contracts) from relying on the subsequent revocation of the patent to avoid liability for damages, because the issues of validity and infringement had already been finally determined between the parties, and Stolt could have found the relevant prior art with reasonable diligence. The law as stated in Poulton remains binding, and neither the Patents Act 1977 nor the Community Patent Convention alters this position.

Parties
Respondents: Coflexip S.A. and Technip Offshore Limited; Appellants: Stolt Offshore MS Ltd. and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents/infringement) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application for Stay of Inquiry Pending Outcome of Patent Revocation Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Revocation, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Cause of Action Estoppel, Abuse of Process
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Patent Revocation Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Cause of Action Estoppel Abuse of Process

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coflexip S.A. and Technip Offshore Limited

Respondents

Stolt Offshore MS Ltd. and others

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents/infringement) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application for Stay of Inquiry Pending Outcome of Patent Revocation Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the revocation of a patent after a final judgment on validity and infringement can be relied upon by the infringer to avoid liability for damages in an ongoing inquiry as to damages.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel prevents the infringer from raising the subsequent revocation as a defence.
  3. 3 Whether the Patents Act 1977 or the Community Patent Convention alters the effect of the estoppel.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that Stolt was estopped by cause of action estoppel (as to the Magnus Swift contract) and issue estoppel (as to the other contracts) from relying on the subsequent revocation of the patent to avoid liability for damages, because the issues of validity and infringement had already been finally determined between the parties, and Stolt could have found the relevant prior art with reasonable diligence. The law as stated in Poulton remains binding, and neither the Patents Act 1977 nor the Community Patent Convention alters this position.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stolt's appeal is dismissed; the inquiry as to damages is not stayed.
  • Consequential matters to be dealt with at a later hearing.