Coflexip v Stolt Comex Seaways A/S Summary

OFFICIAL NOTICE

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application : No. 654276 in the name of COFLEXIP.

Title: Device and process for unrolling flexible tubular conduits essentially vertically.

Action: Opposition under Section 59 of the Patents Act by STOLT COMEX SEAWAY A/S.

Decision: Issued .
Abstract:Final determination. In a decision issued on 14^th May 1998 certain claims were found to lack clarity and lack fair basis. Coflexip subsequently proposed amendments that sought to overcome the deficiencies found in that decision. Those amendments were allowed unopposed.
The amendments address the above-mentioned deficiencies. The application is in order to proceed to grant.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent application 654276 by COFLEXIP, and opposition by STOLT COMEX SEAWAY A/S under Section 59.

DECISION

I issued a decision on the opposition to patent application 654276 on 14^th May 1998. In that decision I found that certain claims lacked clarity and lacked fair basis. Coflexip filed amendments in response to my decision. Those amendments have now been allowed.

Stolt Comex Seaway A/S did not provide any comment on the amendments in respect to clarity and fair basis nor did Stolt request to be further heard.

I consider the amendments overcome the deficiencies that I raised in the decision.

The application is in order for sealing.

M.G. Kraefft

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Attorneys for the applicant : Davies Collison Cave, Melbourne

Attorneys for the opponent : Collison & Co, Adelaide

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Coflexip v Stolt Comex Seaways A/S, the dispute centred around patent application 654276 filed by Coflexip, which sought protection for a device and process for unrolling flexible tubular conduits essentially vertically. The dispute was contested by Stolt Comex Seaway A/S, which opposed the patent application under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The matter was decided by a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the claims in Coflexip's patent application lacked clarity and fair basis, as Stolt Comex Seaway A/S had argued. The court had to determine if the proposed amendments to the claims by Coflexip adequately addressed the deficiencies identified in the earlier decision.

The court found that the amendments proposed by Coflexip successfully overcame the deficiencies previously identified. The delegate of the Commissioner of Patents considered the amendments to be sufficient in terms of clarity and fair basis. Stolt Comex Seaway A/S did not contest the amendments or request further hearings. Consequently, the application was deemed to be in order for sealing. The final determination was that the patent application could proceed to grant, following the acceptance of the proposed amendments.

Coflexip v Stolt Comex Seaways A/S

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established