Aktiebolag & Anor v Irish Ferries Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

This patent infringement action involves the Plaintiff, who are the registered proprietor and exclusive licensee of a European patent concerning superstructures for multihull vessels, and the Defendant, a ferry operator running a service between two ports using a high-speed catamaran vessel. The Plaintiff initially alleged infringement of all five claims of the patent but now only defends the validity of claim 3, which is dependent upon claims 1 and 2. The Defendant disputes the validity of claim 3, denies infringement, and raises a statutory defence under section 60(5)(d) of the Patents Act 1977 related to the use of patented products in relevant ships temporarily entering UK waters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether claim 3 of the patent is valid in light of prior art and the common general knowledge.
2. Whether the Defendant's vessel infringes claim 3 of the patent.
3. Whether the Defendant is entitled to a statutory defence under section 60(5)(d) of the Patents Act 1977 regarding the use of the patented invention in a relevant ship temporarily entering UK territorial waters.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The patent claims a novel superstructure construction for multihull vessels using latticework beams with triangular window openings that contribute to global strength while allowing large windows.
• Claim 3 is valid as the inventive concept is not obvious and was not anticipated by prior art such as the Martini patent or other known vessels.
• The Defendant's vessel incorporates latticework beams within its superstructure and has windows within the free spaces defined by those beams, thus infringing claim 3.
• The statutory defence under section 60(5)(d) does not apply because the Defendant's ferry is regularly and persistently in UK waters, so its presence is not temporary.

Defendant's Arguments

• Claim 3 is invalid due to lack of novelty and obviousness based on prior art, common general knowledge, and existing designs such as the Martini patent and other vessels.
• The Defendant's vessel does not infringe because it does not have latticework beams as claimed; the outer walls are made from stiffened plates with channels and the windows are attached externally rather than within the latticework free spaces.
• The statutory defence under section 60(5)(d) applies because the ferry temporarily enters UK territorial waters as part of its international route, and thus its use of the patented invention is exempt from infringement liability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the patent's technical background, the inventive concept, and the scope of claim 3, focusing on the latticework beam structure incorporating triangular window openings contributing to the vessel's global strength. The court found the inventive concept valid, rejecting the obviousness and novelty challenges based on prior art and common general knowledge, noting that although bracing and latticework structures were known, their application in ship superstructures with large triangular windows was not obvious.

Regarding infringement, the court interpreted the claim language purposively, concluding that the Defendant's ferry incorporates latticework beams as claimed, with triangular windows in the free spaces, even though the glazing material is attached externally. The court rejected arguments limiting the claim to continuous beams or requiring glazing within the free spaces.

On the statutory defence under section 60(5)(d), the court conducted a detailed statutory construction. It held that "temporarily" means for a limited period consistent with the vehicle's role in international transport, regardless of frequency or regularity. The Defendant's ferry, making regular crossings and spending short periods in UK waters, qualifies as temporarily entering UK territorial waters. The court further held that the defence applies to the invention embodied in part of the ship, not only to parts but to the relevant inventive concept within the vessel's body, rejecting a narrow interpretation that would exclude whole-ship claims.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that claim 3 of the patent is valid, but the Defendant's vessel does not infringe the patent due to the statutory defence available under section 60(5)(d) of the Patents Act 1977.

Implications: The decision means that while the patent is upheld as valid, the Defendant is entitled to use the patented invention without infringement liability while the vessel temporarily enters UK territorial waters as part of its international ferry service. This statutory defence limits the enforceability of patent rights in the context of international transport vehicles temporarily in the jurisdiction, and no new precedent was set beyond the application of existing statutory provisions.