Coflexip SA & Anor v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Ltd & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judgment of the Chancery Division concerning European Patent (UK) No 0478 742, which was held valid and infringed by the trial judge. The appellants, hereafter referred to as the Appellants, appealed with leave granted, challenging the validity and infringement findings. The patent proprietors and exclusive licensees, hereafter referred to as the Respondents, supported the trial judge's conclusions and opposed the introduction of fresh evidence and re-amendment of objections sought by the Appellants.

The patent relates to a device and process for laying flexible tubular conduits vertically, addressing problems associated with laying flexible submarine pipes, particularly the overboarding of rigid accessories and crushing due to tension. The trial judge's detailed factual findings on the technical background and the nature of flexible versus rigid pipes, as well as existing pipe laying methods, were incorporated into the appellate judgment.

The appeal raised four main issues: whether the patent was infringed; whether it was obvious (validity); whether fresh evidence and re-amendment of pleadings should be allowed; and whether the injunction granted was appropriate in form.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Was the patent infringed?
2. Was the patent obvious (validity)?
3. Should the Appellants be allowed to introduce fresh evidence and re-amend their particulars of objections?
4. Was the trial judge correct in refusing to grant the injunction sought by the Respondents in the usual form?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The patent should be invalidated on grounds of obviousness, relying on prior art including a US patent and the known J-lay method for rigid pipes.
• The term "flexible conduit" should be construed broadly to include all flexible pipes, including small diameter steel pipes.
• The claim requires only a part of the pull to be taken by the tensioning means, not all of it.
• The injunction granted was too broad and should be limited or refused.
• Sought permission to re-amend pleadings to rely on newly discovered US patent prior art and to adduce fresh evidence, arguing it was in the public interest to test validity fully.

Respondents' Arguments

• The patent was valid and infringed as held by the trial judge.
• "Flexible conduit" should be understood as referring to conduits known in the industry as flexible pipes and similar structures, excluding rigid pipes.
• The claims require the main tensioning means to take all of the pull seaside of the tensioners, not just a part.
• The injunction granted by the trial judge, while unusual in form, was appropriate given the circumstances.
• The application to re-amend and introduce fresh evidence should be refused due to lack of good reason, prior opportunity to search, and the need for finality in litigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the construction of the patent claims, particularly the meaning of "flexible conduit" and the scope of the tensioning means in the claims. It accepted that "flexible conduit" excludes rigid pipes but includes flexible pipes and similar structures, including certain cables. The court held that the tensioning means must take all (or substantially all) of the pull seaside of the tensioners, rejecting the Appellants' narrower interpretation.

On infringement, the court found that the Respondents' vessel and method fell within the claims. The presence of deflectors below the tensioners did not amount to guides, and thus did not avoid infringement.

Regarding validity, the court applied the structured approach to obviousness from Windsurfing, identifying the inventive concept as a process for laying flexible conduits with rigid accessories using main vertical tensioners that can open to allow accessories to pass, supplemented by auxiliary tensioners. The court distinguished prior art, including the Apache vessel and the J-lay method, as relating to rigid pipes with different tensioning arrangements and problems. The court rejected the argument that the invention was an obvious extension of prior art, finding the inventive concept not obvious at the priority date.

On the application to re-amend pleadings and introduce fresh evidence based on a newly discovered US patent, the court exercised its discretion against allowing the amendment. It emphasized the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, the need for finality, and the absence of exceptional circumstances. The court held that the Appellants had made a deliberate choice not to conduct wider prior art searches and should not be allowed a second bite at the cherry.

Concerning the injunction, the court analyzed the unusual form granted by the trial judge, finding it deficient because it was not linked to the patent term, exceeded statutory rights, and was unclear. The court held that the usual form of injunction restraining infringement of the patent was appropriate to protect the Respondents' rights and provide clarity.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming the validity and infringement findings of the trial judge.

The court REFUSED the Appellants' applications to re-amend their particulars of objection and to adduce fresh evidence.

The injunction granted by the trial judge was set aside and replaced by an injunction in the usual form restraining infringement of the patent.

The decision enforces the principle that parties must present their full case at trial and that reopening cases on newly found prior art is disfavoured absent exceptional circumstances. It clarifies claim construction principles and confirms the structured approach to obviousness in patent law. No new precedent was established beyond applying established principles to the facts.