Coflexip SA & Anor v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 242 (31 July 2000)

Coflexip SA & Anor v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 242 (31 July 2000)

The patent claims, properly construed, are valid and infringed. The invention is not rendered obvious by the prior art or common general knowledge. The construction of key claim terms supports the patentee's position. The respondents' process falls within the scope of the claims. The judge was correct to refuse the introduction of fresh evidence and re-amendment of particulars. The injunction should be in the usual form.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 242
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Coflexip S.A.; Claimant/appellant: Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited; Defendant/respondent: Stolt Comex Seaway MS Limited; Defendant/respondent: Stolt Comex Seaway Limited; Defendant/respondent: Stolt Comex Seaway S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on injunction form allowed in part
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Prior Art, Remedies (injunction)
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Patent Validity Claim Construction Obviousness Prior Art Remedies (injunction)

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coflexip S.A.

Claimant/appellant

Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited

Claimant/appellant

Stolt Comex Seaway MS Limited

Defendant/respondent

Stolt Comex Seaway Limited

Defendant/respondent

Stolt Comex Seaway S.A.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent was infringed by the respondents' activities
  2. 2 Whether the patent was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge
  3. 3 Proper construction of key claim terms in the patent

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claims, properly construed, are valid and infringed. The invention is not rendered obvious by the prior art or common general knowledge. The construction of key claim terms supports the patentee's position. The respondents' process falls within the scope of the claims. The judge was correct to refuse the introduction of fresh evidence and re-amendment of particulars. The injunction should be in the usual form.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on injunction form allowed in part

Orders

  • Patent held valid and infringed
  • Application to introduce fresh evidence and re-amend particulars refused