Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA & Anor

Patent claims must be construed purposively through their language, description and drawings. The general inventive purpose matters, while deliberate claim limitations retain meaning. A device claim expressed in terms of suitability can cover equipment capable of performing the claimed process, even where that use is unintended.

Anticipation requires clear and unmistakable disclosure of every claim element. Possible modifications or uncertain implications do not suffice. Appellate caution concerning evaluative findings does not govern a straightforward comparison between a prior publication and the claim.

Obviousness must address the claimed combination and its actual differences from the prior art. A series of apparently easy steps identified with hindsight can conceal an inventive combination. Expert evidence is assessed principally through its explanation and reasons, rather than the expert's resemblance to the notional skilled person.

Technip France SA and Technip Offshore UK Limited, collectively called Coflexip in the judgment, were the patentee and exclusive licensee of a European patent concerning offshore laying of flexible conduits. The claimed arrangement used a substantially vertical main tensioner and an auxiliary tensioner for passing rigid accessories. Rockwater Ltd sought revocation, and Coflexip alleged infringement by Rockwater's apparatus on the Toisa Perseus.

In earlier litigation against a company called Stolt, the Court of Appeal had upheld the method claims and adopted a wide construction of the device claim. Both sides accepted the construction points settled in those proceedings. In the present proceedings, Laddie J held that Rockwater's apparatus fell outside the device claim and that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step.

Coflexip appealed. The principal questions concerned the meaning of the last means for guiding the conduit, whether the Recalde publications disclosed apparatus capable of performing the claimed process, and whether the claimed combination was obvious.

The appeal was allowed unanimously. Jacob LJ's reasoning was agreed by Mummery and Pill LJJ. The patent was valid and infringed.

1. Under Art 69 of the European Patent Convention, claim language had to be read purposively with the description and drawings. The relevant purpose was the general inventive concept, rather than the details of a particular embodiment. Deliberate limitations retained meaning. The terms of the claims defined the protection afforded.

2. The last means for guiding the conduit meant the last means providing substantial guidance. The invention brought the conduit from horizontal to substantially vertical before imposing significant tension. Minor downstream deflection did not defeat that purpose. Rockwater's offset aperture and horn therefore did not take its apparatus outside claim 3. Independently, the vessel could perform the claimed process with its moonpool doors open. Its intended operating practice and asserted safety considerations did not remove that capability.

3. The main tensioner had to be capable of taking substantially all the sea-side pull during deep-water laying. Construing the claim to cover a weak tensioner operating only under a slight pull would conflict with the patent's purpose.

4. Anticipation required clear and unmistakable directions disclosing every claim element: General Tire v Firestone Tire & Rubber, [1972] RPC 457, applied. Recalde disclosed neither a suitably arranged auxiliary tensioner nor a main tensioner capable of taking substantially all the sea-side pull. Winch 62 required unspecified modification, and its suitability had not been established. Winch 362 lacked instructions for the necessary cable routing. Winch 62 also lacked the supporting-structure mounting required by claim 9. The novelty attack consequently failed.

5. The caution described in Biogen v Medeva, [1997] RPC 1, concerned evaluative applications of imprecise standards. It did not govern the straightforward documentary novelty comparison here. On obviousness, the judge's erroneous identification of the differences from the prior art permitted appellate reassessment.

6. Applying the structured approach in Windsurfing v Tabur Marine, [1985] RPC 59, the inventive concept comprised the combination of the vertical main tensioner, substantial guidance and auxiliary tensioner for passing accessories. The judge had wrongly treated those features as unrelated elements and underestimated the differences from Recalde. His sequence of apparently easy modifications involved hindsight. The longstanding problems and the failure to make this combination despite its components being long known reinforced the conclusion that it was inventive.

7. Experts principally educated the court. Their reasons mattered more than their conclusions or resemblance to the hypothetical skilled person. An expert's inventive disposition did not itself diminish the evidence. The court also advised that an unaccepted product or process description should, if required by the claimant, be formally proved through a trial witness.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 381 , unanimously allowed Coflexip's appeal on infringement, novelty and obviousness, holding the patent valid and infringed.
• High Court, Chancery Division (Patents Court): Laddie J held that Rockwater's apparatus fell outside claim 3 and that the patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness. No citation for that judgment is stated.