Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Airways Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Patten,Lady Justice Smith |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 162 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2010/2981 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 February 2011 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 162
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION (PATENTS COURT)
The Hon Mr Justice Arnold
Before: The Rt Hon Lady Justice Smith
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob
and
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Patten
Case No: A3/2010/2981
Richard Meade QC and Henry Ward (instructed by DLA Piper LLP) for the Claimant/Appellant
Mark Vanhegan QC and Brian Nicholson (instructed by Wragge & Co LLP) for the Defendant/Respondent
Hearing date: 2 nd February 2011
Lord Justice Jacob (giving the first judgment at the invitation of Smith LJ):
This appeal is from a judgment of Arnold J of 30 th November 2010, [2010] EWGC 3094 (Pat). He held that the patentees, Virgin, had no realistic prospect of successfully establishing that Delta infringed or would infringe Virgin's EP (UK) 1 495 908 (the "Patent"). Accordingly, by way of summary judgment, he granted Delta declarations to that effect and dismissed Virgin's action for infringement.
The Judge described the extensive nature of the litigation concerning the Patent at [2–28]. I need not repeat it all in detail here. For present purposes it suffices say that Virgin succeeded in its action against a company called Contour (also sometimes called Premium) by a decision of this Court in October 2009. The Patent as it then stood was held valid and infringed in the UK by Contour. Contour makes "ship-sets" of aircraft seats (i.e. not only the seats, but the plinths and all other fittings for a particular type of aircraft of the customer airline). Delta is one of its customers.
However subsequently, in September 2010, in opposition proceedings in the EPO the patent claims were amended. Claims to a seat unit for a passenger seating system for an aircraft were deleted. The Patent as amended contains only claims for "a passenger seating system for an aircraft".
Prior to that decision Virgin had sued Delta claiming that it was a joint-infringer with Contour. The action had stalled pending determination of the Contour litigation and the EPO proceedings. When the Patent was amended, Delta applied for summary judgment. For present purposes at least, it accepts that if what Contour does infringes the amended Patent, then it too is liable. But, it says, Contour does not infringe for a variety of reasons. Not all were advanced as clear enough for summary judgment and we are not concerned with them.
The facts
Contour make aircraft seats in Wales for their customers. The seats concerned in this action are called Solar Eclipse.
More specifically Delta for the purposes of this summary judgment application accept the facts as set out by the Judge at [128]:
i) instructions are provided by Contour for assembly of the Solar Eclipse seat units on the aircraft;
ii) those instructions set out only a single way to assemble the seat units;
iii) following those instructions inevitably results in a seating system within claim 1;
iv) those instructions are sufficiently detailed to show the precise position of every component and their relative positions;
v) Contour either undertakes or partially undertakes the assembly, or at least provides assistance for the assembly by way of supervision or inspection;
vi) the assembly of seat units is designed as a bespoke whole for the specific use of each specific customer, such as Delta;
vii) assembly is within the routine skill of the ordinary engineer;
viii) a number of seat units are assembled together, albeit not on an aircraft, by Contour at an FAI ["First Article Inspection" which means a mock-up of the cabin of the aircraft into which the seats will be fitted] in the UK so that the customer, such as Delta, is able to determine how the units will fit together;
ix) airline seating systems are normally sold as kits; and
x) practical constraints necessitate, or least make it desirable, to sell seating systems as kits.
Mr Richard Meade QC, for Virgin, added two more facts before us, both of which Mr Vanhegan QC, for Delta, was prepared to accept. They are:
xi) In practice neither aircraft manufacturers nor airlines make aircraft seats. They are designed and made by specialist companies such as Contour, selected by the airline and fitted to the aircraft by its manufacturer. Here, for instance, Contour send out ship-sets to Seattle. Their employees help Boeing install the seats;
xii) There is no sensible way of using the ship-sets supplied by Contour other than to fit them into the specific type of aircraft for which they are intended. Of course in theory you could fit the seats anywhere – a cinema for example. But that has no commercial reality.
The Issues
The main points before the judge were:
a) Do Contour's acts within the UK fall within the scope of the amended Patent, and more specifically does the Patent claim cover a ship-set before it is installed on the aircraft?
b) Can the manufacture and sale in the UK of a complete kit of parts to assemble a device which falls within a patent claim infringe?
c) Can the manufacture in, and export from, the UK of an incomplete kit of parts for assembling abroad a device which falls within a patent claim infringe?
Virgin took a point about Delta being bound by a finding in this Court's decision that Contour infringed claim 1 of the unamended patent. The judge rejected that and there is no appeal.
The Judge held that:
(1) Contour did not infringe because the main patent claim (claim 1) required a seating system comprising a plurality of seat units assembled and arranged on an aircraft. The system was only assembled abroad.
(2) As a matter of law it was arguable that manufacture in the UK of a complete kit of parts for assembling a patented device could infringe a patent.
(3) But as a matter of law it was not arguable that the manufacture in the UK of an incomplete kit of parts subsequently exported could infringe. [Of course if the incomplete kit was used in the UK to assemble the whole patented article, there might be contributory infringement pursuant to s.60(2))]
It followed that Contour did not infringe: they did not make an assembly within the claim and only made an incomplete kit of parts in the UK, a kit never used to make the patented apparatus within the UK.
Before us Delta did not challenge the second of these holdings. So we were left with two issues, namely whether the claim called for a ship-set assembled on an aircraft or not, and whether an incomplete kit of parts could infringe.
Because I take the view that the Judge was wrong on the first point, it is not necessary to consider the second or third points. I do not propose to do so because I do not think these rather abstract questions of law should be decided on a summary judgment application. The position across Europe (we were taken to cases and lawyers' opinions from Germany, Holland and some other countries) is not well settled. There is room for development of the law. The question could be highly fact sensitive (e.g. in the case of an incomplete kit, how incomplete? Would "batteries not supplied" be enough to avoid a claim which required fitted batteries?). It is better to decide the matter on the basis of concrete facts.
Principles for summary Judgment in patent cases
These were not in dispute. The Judge sets them out at [32–36]. Whilst the general rules as to summary judgment apply equally to patent cases as to other types of case, there can be difficulties, particularly in cases where the technology is complex. If it is, the court may not be able, on a summary application, to form a confident view about the claim or its construction, particularly about the understanding of the skilled man. On the other hand in a case such as the present, where the technology is relatively simple to understand, there is really no good reason why summary procedure cannot be invoked. No one should assume that summary judgment is not for patent disputes. It all depends on the nature of the dispute.
That can cut both ways, of course. If the court is able to grasp the case well enough to resolve the point, then it can and should do so – whether in favour of the patentee or the alleged infringer.
Here, for instance, I am satisfied not only that the Judge erred on the point but that Virgin are right about it. The claim is not limited to a ship-set fitted into an aircraft. It covers a system capable of being so fitted. I turn to explain why.
Claim 1 and its construction: whole aircraft point
Claim 1 as amended reads (broken down into elements):
[1] A passenger seating system for an aircraft, comprising a plurality of seat units (40),
[2] each seat unit defining only one notional longitudinal seat axis (C-C) and
[3] comprising a supporting structure (42) adapted for attaching the seat unit to a floor (30) of an aircraft (12) and
[4] means for forming or being configurable for forming a seat comprising a seat-pan (71) and a back-rest (72),
[5] wherein each seat unit further comprises a foot-rest (65) positioned forwardly of the seat,
[6] said seat units being arranged to form a column (29) defining a notional longitudinal column axis (B-B),
[7] in which column said seat-units are arranged side-by-side in longitudinally offset relation at an acute angle to the notional column axis (B-B),
[8] wherein at least some of the seat units are arranged to be disposed adjacent a sidewall (26,28) of the aircraft and face inwardly thereby to define between the rear of each seat and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc.
- Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc.
-
Medimmune Ltd v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Another
...Mercantile Ltd v William Hill Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1702, [2003] 1 WLR 1462 and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Air Lines Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162. There is nothing inherently objectionable about affording MedImmune a remedy in this country given that ranibizumab is sold here. Nor do Ar......
-
Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Neopharma Ltd and Another
...rejected. 7 The principles on which the court should grant summary judgment on a claim or issue are well-established. In Virgin Atlantic Airways v Delta Airways Limited, [2010] EWHC 3094 (Pat), 30th November 2010, Arnold J said this, at 32 and 33: "32. There is no dispute about these. They......
-
IP Bulletin - March 2011 Edition - Cases From February 2011
...of aircraft passenger seats. More >>> PATENTS Court of Appeal – summary judgment Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Airways Inc, [2011] EWCA Civ 162, 23 February 2011 The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court decision (see last month's Bulletin) granting summary judgment to the defen......
-
Construction Of A Patent About Aircraft Seats Is Overturned By Court Of Appeal
...Arnold J therefore concluded that Delta did not infringe the patent. Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Virgin v Delta [2011] EWCA Civ 162, 23rd February 2011, Jacob LJ overturned the High Court decision. In his view the claim was not limited to a ship-set fitted into an "Accordi......
-
IP Snapshot - March 2011
...complained of being an infringement. For the full text of the decision, click here. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Airways Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162, 23 February The Court of Appeal has reversed a High Court decision granting summary judgment in favour of Delta. The High Court held that ......
-
Management and Enforcement
...& Metal Products Ltd. , 2007 FC 502 (patent); Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. Delta Airways Inc. , [2010] EWHC 3094 (Pat. Ct.), rev’d [2011] EWCA Civ 162 at [13]–[15] (summary judgment: patent); Possian v. Canadian Olympic Association (1996), 74 C.P.R. (3d) 509 (Fed. T.D.); Wall v. Brunell ......