Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated v Coflixip SA (256/2001) [2002] ZASCA 99; 2003 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (6 September 2002)

Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated v Coflixip SA (256/2001) [2002] ZASCA 99; 2003 (1) SA 16 (SCA) (6 September 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's apparatus infringed the patent as it contained all the essential integers of claims 1, 8, and 9, including the holding means imparting the required predetermined curvature to the hose and qualifying as a holding means for a zone of the hose. The court found that the prior art relied upon by the appellant did not disclose the claimed invention, particularly the continuous hose and the specific holding means, and thus the patent was novel. The inventive step was upheld, as the configuration claimed by the patent was a hybrid of known configurations and solved significant technical and financial problems in the industry, which was not...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated; Respondent: Coflixip SA
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2002
Case Number
256/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Scott, Streicher, Nugent, Jones
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Novelty, Inventive Step, Clarity of Claims, Expert Evidence, Patents Act 1978
Intellectual Property Patent Infringement Novelty Inventive Step Clarity of Claims Expert Evidence Patents Act 1978

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schlumberger Logelco Incorporated

Appellant

Coflixip SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's apparatus infringed claims 1, 8, and 9 of Patent 89/1418.
  2. 2 Whether the patent lacked novelty in light of prior art.
  3. 3 Whether the patent was obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's apparatus infringed the patent as it contained all the essential integers of claims 1, 8, and 9, including the holding means imparting the required predetermined curvature to the hose and qualifying as a holding means for a zone of the hose. The court found that the prior art relied upon by the appellant did not disclose the claimed invention, particularly the continuous hose and the specific holding means, and thus the patent was novel. The inventive step was upheld, as the configuration claimed by the patent was a hybrid of known configurations and solved significant technical and financial problems in the industry, which was not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.