Rockwater Ltd v Technip France SA and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JACOB |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 381,[2004] EWCA Civ 522 |
| Docket Number | A3/2003/1074 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 06 April 2004 |
[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
Lord Justice Pill
Lord Justice Mummery
Lord Justice Jacob
A3/2003/1074
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
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.
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.
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.
An order for delivery up was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procter & Gamble UK v HM Revenue and Customs
...with that overall assessment – what is commonly called a value-judgment. 10 I gathered together the authorities about this in Rockwater v Technip [2004] EWCA (Civ) 381: [71] … In Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 at p. 45 Lord Hoffmann said when discussing the issue of obviousness: “The need fo......
- Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v El Du Pont De Nemours and Company
-
Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores Ltd
...ORS TERRELL ON THE LAW OF PATENTS 16ED 2006 MCGRATH EVIDENCE 1ED 2005 TECHNIP FRANCE SAS PATENT; ROCKWATER LTD v TECHNIP FRANCE SA & ANOR 2004 RPC 46 2004 EWCA CIV 381 ROUTESTONE LTD v MINORIES FINANCE LTD & ANOR 1997 BCC 180 1997 1 EGLR 123 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC v APOTEX EUROPE LTD 2005 F......
- Spind Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Justrade Marketing Sdn Bhd and Others
-
Expert Evidence in patent cases: recent guidance from the Bench
...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......
-
THE FUTURE OF INVENTIVE STEP IN PATENT LAW
...passage was cited with approval by Lewison J in Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Akzo Nobel NV[2006] EWHC 1089; [2007] RPC 45 at [54]. 38[2004] EWCA Civ 381; [2004] RPC 46 at [7]. 39[2004] EWCA Civ 381; [2004] RPC 46 at [8]. 40Hallen Co v Barbantia (UK) Ltd[1991] RPC 195. 41Dyson Appliances Lt......
-
THE USE OF EXPERTS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN SINGAPORE INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
...to the person skilled in the art to “mosaic” (or read together) two different documents in the prior art. 44Technip France SA's Patent[2004] RPC 46 at [43], per Jacob LJ (CA). 45 As laid down by McNair J in Bolam v Freiern Hospital Management Committee[1957] 1 WLR 582. 46 Pfizer Ltd's Paten......
-
Intellectual Property Law
...in the art’ has the curious distinction of having the court don his mantle. As Jacob LJ said in Technip France SA's Patent Application[2004] RPC 46 at [6]: The claims of a patent must be understood as if read by that notional man – in the hackneyed but convenient phrase the “court must don ......