Coflexip SA & Anor v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Ltd & Ors

Patent claims must be construed in the context of the specification as a whole. The court should avoid both strict literalism and treating the claims as mere guidelines. The construction must give fair protection to the patentee and reasonable certainty to third parties.

Obviousness must be assessed without hindsight through the structured Windsurfing approach. The inventive concept cannot be defined more narrowly than the claims. An unsuccessful party will ordinarily be refused permission to introduce discoverable prior art on appeal where doing so would require a retrial.

After validity and infringement have been established, the usual injunction restraining infringement will generally provide fair protection. The remedy remains discretionary and must be clear, limited to the patent’s lifetime and statutory monopoly, and subject to statutory exceptions.

Coflexip owned and exclusively licensed a European patent concerning a process and device for laying flexible conduits in deep water. Laddie J held the patent valid and infringed by Stolt’s flexible pipe-laying system. Stolt appealed on construction, infringement and obviousness. It also sought to introduce a newly discovered United States patent, amend its particulars of objections and adduce fresh evidence.

Coflexip challenged through its respondent’s notice the specially framed injunction granted below. The central questions were whether the relevant claims covered Stolt’s process and apparatus, whether they were obvious in light of rigid-pipe J-lay systems and the vessel Apache, whether the validity case should be reopened, and whether the injunction should take the usual form restraining infringement.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Stolt’s substantive appeal and refused its applications to amend and adduce fresh evidence. It allowed Coflexip’s challenge to the form of relief, discharged the specially framed injunction and substituted the usual injunction restraining infringement of the patent.
2. Construction and infringement. Aldous LJ, with whom Chadwick and Buxton LJJ agreed, held that claims must be interpreted using the description and drawings as part of the document as a whole. Section 125 of the Patents Act 1977 and the Protocol on article 69 of the European Patent Convention required a position between literal construction and treating claims merely as guidelines. “Flexible conduit” included flexible pipes and structures such as cables with similar flexing qualities, but excluded pipes recognised in the industry as rigid. “The pull” meant all the seaside tension, subject to the practical tolerances inherent in pipe-laying. Claim 3’s reference to a device “for operating” the process meant a device suitable for doing so. The deflectors on Stolt’s vessel were protective bumpers rather than guides in normal operation. Infringement was therefore established.
3. Obviousness. Applying Windsurfing, the inventive concept combined vertically mounted main tensioners taking the seaside pull, the ability to open them for a rigid accessory, and an auxiliary tensioner taking the pull while that accessory passed. The concept simultaneously addressed crushing of flexible pipe and buckling at the junction with a rigid accessory. The rigid-pipe J-lay system and Apache addressed different problems and did not suggest that combination. The contrary argument depended on hindsight. Claims 1 and 3 were valid.
4. New prior art. Under rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, parties must ordinarily present their whole case at one trial. Prior art discoverable by a wider search could not justify a second trial merely because the earlier search had been thought reasonable. Chadwick LJ emphasised that the relevant question was whether the party had done what was necessary. No exceptional circumstances justified reopening the case.
5. Injunction. A patentee who conclusively establishes validity, infringement and a threat of repetition will generally receive an injunction, although the remedy remains discretionary. The injunction below was unclear, was not confined to the patent’s lifetime, failed to preserve statutory exceptions and was tied unnecessarily to a detailed process description. The usual form accurately reflected the adjudicated statutory monopoly and was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The substantive appeal was dismissed unanimously. The applications to amend the particulars of objections and introduce fresh evidence were refused. The injunction below was discharged and replaced by the usual injunction restraining infringement: [2000] EWCA Civ 242.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Laddie J held European Patent (UK) No 0478 742 valid and infringed. He subsequently granted an injunction limited by reference to Stolt’s product and process description. No citation for the High Court judgments is stated.