Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA and another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
JudgeLORD JUSTICE JACOB
Judgment Date06 Apr 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWCA Civ 381,[2004] EWCA Civ 522
Docket NumberA3/2003/1074

[2004] EWCA Civ 522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

(MR JUSTICE LADDIE)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Before:

Lord Justice Pill

Lord Justice Mummery

Lord Justice Jacob

A3/2003/1074

Rockwater Ltd
Claimant/Part 20 Defendant
and
Technip France SA and Another
Defendants/Part 20 Claimants

MR ANDREW WAUGH QC and MR JUSTIN TURNER (instructed by Bristows of London) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

MR SIMON THORLEY QC and MR THOMAS MITCHESON (instructed by Hammonds of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

LORD JUSTICE JACOB
1

A number of points arise on the order following our judgment. First, as to the form of the injunction: should it or should it not be limited to claims 3 to 9? It is suggested that because there was in the end no allegation of infringement of claims 1 and 2, and that there is no extant threat to infringe claims 1 and 2, that the injunction should expressly exclude claims 1 and 2. In my judgment, that submission fails. Claim 3 is wider than claims 1 and 2. Necessarily therefore limiting the injunction to claim 3 is pointless. In any event, the fact is that an attempt was made to invoke claims 1 and 2 and it is appropriate that the injunction should cover the carrying out of the process of those claims.

2

Next, there is no exceptional reason why there should be a stay of either the injunction, any financial inquiry or of the process of assessment of costs. It is common ground there has to be an exceptional reason if there is to be a stay. There is none there. In particular, so far as the injunction is concerned, the current position is that Rockwater do not have a vessel within the jurisdiction of this court and have no particular project in mind. There is no appropriate ground for a stay.

3

The proposal for a special proviso giving liberty to apply to the High Court in various ways is a proposal which is not usual. We were told Lord Justice Aldous made it in a particular case, but we were not taken to the details. The concrete basis for the suggestion was that Rockwater may have some variant which they think does not infringe, and they would like to apply directly to the High Court for a declaration. That would mean by-passing the statutory procedure for a declaration of non-infringement. I see no reason why that should be allowed.

4

An order for delivery up was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Expert Evidence in patent cases: recent guidance from the Bench
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 20 May 2021
    ...skilled person could (or could not, as the case may be) get to the idea of the claimed invention.Role of experts07_Rockwater v Technip [2004] EWCA Civ 381allenovery.comMultiple expertsIn cases where more than one expert is called, due consideration should be given as to the order in which t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT