Rockwater Ltd v Coflexip SA & Anor

Patent claims must be construed purposively in the context of the specification, while giving effect to every integer which the skilled reader would understand to be an essential part of the invention. A device claim covering apparatus “for” operating a process may extend to apparatus suitable for operating that process, even if it is not being so used. A “means for guiding” is equipment capable of applying lateral force to the conduit during a significant part of the vessel’s normal operation. Anticipation requires clear and unmistakable directions to perform something within the claim. A claim is obvious if the skilled person would regard the claimed operation as an obvious way of using the prior art.

Rockwater sought revocation of European Patent (UK) 0 478 742, owned by Coflexip SA, concerning the laying of flexible conduits from a vessel. Coflexip and its exclusive licensee, Technip Offshore UK Ltd, counterclaimed for infringement based on the presence and capabilities of Rockwater’s vessel, the Toisa Perseus, during pipelaying operations.

The principal issues were the construction of claims 1 and 3, whether the vessel infringed the apparatus claims despite the process claims not having been practised, and whether the claims were anticipated or obvious in light of Recalde US and Recalde GB.

1. Construction of claim 3. The expression “a device for operating” meant a device suitable for operating the patented process. It was not necessary for the device actually to be used in that manner. The claim could therefore be infringed by the commercial presence of suitable apparatus, even without a corresponding process operation.
2. The word “means” in “means for guiding” was not confined to wheels, gutters or chutes. It covered any structure capable of carrying out the specified guiding function. “Guiding” required the application of lateral force which altered or diverted the conduit’s direction. The last guiding means was equipment capable of applying that force during a significant part of the vessel’s operation within its normal operational envelope.
3. The requirement that the tensioning means comprise the last guiding means was mandatory. It was insufficient that the tensioner was merely capable of being the last guiding means. The flared device on the Toisa Perseus was capable of guiding the conduit and reacted the horizontal tension. The tensioners were therefore not the last guiding means. The vessel did not infringe claim 3, and the dependent apparatus claims also were not infringed.
4. Validity. Anticipation required clear and unmistakable directions in the prior art. Recalde US and Recalde GB disclosed the hardware required by claim 3, including suitable vertical tensioning equipment and an auxiliary winch capable of passing an accessory through the tensioner. Claim 3 and its dependent apparatus claims were therefore anticipated.
5. Claim 1 was obvious. The skilled person would regard operating the Recalde apparatus so that the vertical tensioner took most or all of the tension as an obvious operational choice, particularly to reduce crushing forces. Using an A&R winch to take the load while an accessory passed through an opened tensioner was also a standard and obvious measure. The apparatus claims were consequently obvious as well.
6. Rockwater succeeded on both infringement and validity. The patent claims were invalid, and all infringement allegations failed.