British Leyland Motor Corpn Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd

Copyright in an engineering drawing is ordinarily infringed when a functional three-dimensional article is produced by indirectly copying the article depicted. Nevertheless, a manufacturer that sells a durable product cannot use copyright retained in drawings of inevitably replaceable components to prevent economical repair.

The owner has an inherent right to repair the product and to obtain necessary replacement parts in a free market. The principle against derogation from grant prevents the manufacturer from using copyright to make that right ineffective. It also permits independent suppliers to manufacture replacement parts in anticipation of demand, provided that the parts are intended exclusively for repair.

British Leyland owned copyright in engineering drawings used to manufacture exhaust systems for its cars. Armstrong had never seen those drawings. It reverse-engineered original exhaust pipes and manufactured replacement systems of the same shape and dimensions.

Foster J granted injunctions restraining Armstrong, and the Court of Appeal upheld them in [1984] FSR 591. Armstrong appealed to the House of Lords. The principal questions were whether indirect copying of a purely functional article reproduced the drawings for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1956, and, if so, whether British Leyland could enforce copyright to control the market for parts needed to repair cars it had sold.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The Court of Appeal's order was reversed and the injunctions discharged. Lord Templeman delivered the principal speech. Lord Scarman agreed with his reasons. Lord Bridge reached the same result through the owner's inherent right to repair and the principle against derogation from grant. Lord Edmund-Davies concurred, although with substantial reservations. Lord Griffiths allowed the appeal on a different ground.
2. Per Lord Templeman and Lord Bridge, with Lord Scarman and Lord Edmund-Davies concurring, the indirect copying of a functional three-dimensional object ordinarily constitutes reproduction of the engineering drawing from which the original object was made. The definitions of artistic work, drawing and reproduction in the Copyright Act 1956 encompass engineering drawings irrespective of artistic quality and conversion between two and three dimensions. The House therefore followed L B (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551. Section 9(8) had not achieved the intended separation between artistic copyright and protection for functional industrial designs, but correction of that anomaly generally required legislation.
3. Per Lord Templeman, a vendor cannot deprive a purchaser of the right to repair a durable article. The principle that a grantor may not derogate from the grant applies to the sale of a car containing components which will inevitably require replacement. A manufacturer that sells the car while retaining copyright in its component drawings cannot exercise that copyright so as to make the car unfit for its intended use unless replacement parts are bought from the manufacturer or its licensees.
4. Per Lord Bridge, the right to repair is inherent in ownership and does not depend upon an artificial implied licence. In the context of mass-produced goods, that right would be valueless unless owners could obtain previously manufactured parts in an unrestricted market. Independent suppliers may therefore anticipate repair demand and manufacture parts intended exclusively as replacements. Copyright cannot be enforced to preserve a spare-parts monopoly which detracts from the rights created by the sale.
5. The exception does not displace express statutory monopolies conferred by patents or registered designs. Such regimes contain their own limits and compulsory-licensing safeguards. Patent law also distinguishes permissible repair from reconstruction amounting to manufacture of a new patented article.
6. Lord Griffiths agreed that the appeal should be allowed but rejected the spare-parts exception. He would have departed from Swish and confined copyright in drawings of purely functional objects to direct copying, including use of the drawing itself to make the object.

1. House of Lords: Allowed Armstrong's appeal, reversed the Court of Appeal's order and discharged the injunctions. The cause was remitted to the Chancery Division.
2. Court of Appeal: By an order dated 21 June 1983, reported at [1984] FSR 591, upheld the injunctions and rejected Armstrong's defences.
3. High Court, Chancery Division: Foster J granted injunctions on 19 July 1982; his judgment is reported at [1982] FSR 481.