Coflexip S.A. & Anor v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd. & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 213 (27 February 2004)

Coflexip S.A. & Anor v Stolt Offshore Ms Ltd. & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 213 (27 February 2004)

The Court of Appeal held that, although the issues of validity and infringement were res judicata between the parties following the first judgment, the subsequent revocation of the patent (if upheld on appeal) could be relied upon by Stolt in the damages inquiry. The law of estoppel has developed since Poulton to allow exceptions in special circumstances, and it would be unjust and contrary to public interest to require payment of damages for infringement of a patent now held to be invalid ab initio. Thus, Stolt is entitled to rely on the revocation to argue that damages should be assessed at nil.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 213
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
Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Inquiry as to Damages Pending Outcome of Patent Revocation Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Revocation, Res Judicata, Estoppel, Damages Inquiry, Abuse of Process
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Patent Revocation Res Judicata Estoppel Damages Inquiry 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 3 Authorities cited 17 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

Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Inquiry as to Damages Pending Outcome of Patent Revocation Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subsequent revocation of a patent (in rem and retrospective) bars enforcement of a prior judgment for damages for infringement between the same parties
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel precludes the infringer from relying on the revocation in the damages inquiry
  3. 3 Whether the law on estoppel has developed since Poulton v Adjustable Cover & Boiler Block Co [1908] 2 Ch 430 to allow exceptions in special circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, although the issues of validity and infringement were res judicata between the parties following the first judgment, the subsequent revocation of the patent (if upheld on appeal) could be relied upon by Stolt in the damages inquiry. The law of estoppel has developed since Poulton to allow exceptions in special circumstances, and it would be unjust and contrary to public interest to require payment of damages for infringement of a patent now held to be invalid ab initio. Thus, Stolt is entitled to rely on the revocation to argue that damages should be assessed at nil.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Stay of the damages inquiry granted pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation of the patent
  • If the revocation is upheld, Stolt may rely on it in the damages inquiry to argue for nil damages