Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA & Anor

Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the Toisa Perseus vessel fell within claim 3 of the patent because the vertical tensioner was the last means for providing substantial guidance to the flexible conduit, and the modifications (offset aperture and horn) did not constitute substantial guidance. The patent was not anticipated by the Recalde prior art, as Recalde did not clearly and unambiguously disclose all the features required by the claims, particularly a suitable auxiliary tensioning means and a main tensioner capable of taking all the seaside pull. The invention was not obvious, as the combination of features was not taught or suggested by the prior art, and the inventive concept was a...

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Rockwater Ltd; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Technip France SA (formerly Coflexip SA); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Technip Offshore UK Limited (formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; patent held valid and infringed
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Infringement, Novelty (anticipation), Obviousness, Expert Evidence
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Construction Infringement Novelty (anticipation) Obviousness Expert Evidence

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rockwater Ltd

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Technip France SA (formerly Coflexip SA)

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Technip Offshore UK Limited (formerly Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited)

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Toisa Perseus vessel falls within claim 3 of the patent
  2. 2 Whether the patent is anticipated (lacks novelty) by prior art (Recalde)
  3. 3 Whether the patent is obvious in light of the prior art

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Toisa Perseus vessel fell within claim 3 of the patent because the vertical tensioner was the last means for providing substantial guidance to the flexible conduit, and the modifications (offset aperture and horn) did not constitute substantial guidance. The patent was not anticipated by the Recalde prior art, as Recalde did not clearly and unambiguously disclose all the features required by the claims, particularly a suitable auxiliary tensioning means and a main tensioner capable of taking all the seaside pull. The invention was not obvious, as the combination of features was not taught or suggested by the prior art, and the inventive concept was a...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; patent held valid and infringed

Orders

  • Declaration that the patent is valid and infringed by Rockwater
  • Costs to be determined