Steelbro New Zealand Limited v Hammar Maskin AB

[2010] NZSC 65

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 36/2010
[2010] NZSC 65

BETWEENSTEELBRO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Applicant

ANDHAMMAR MASKIN AB

First Respondent

ANDBENGT-OLOF HAMMAR

Second Respondent

ANDHAMMAR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Third Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and McGrath JJ

Counsel:J G Miles QC and G W Hall for Applicant

B W F Brown QC for Respondents

Judgment:11 June 2010 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

REASONS

[1]        This is an application for leave to appeal against a finding by the Court of Appeal,[1] reversing the High Court,[2] that Steelbro has infringed Hammar's patent for stabiliser legs on sidelifters, which provide stability for vehicles during the loading and unloading of, inter alia, shipping containers.  The dispute is about the meaning of an integer of the patent claim, namely, of the words “an extension part of which is movably arranged in a bearing in the first support part”.  In essence, the dispute is whether that integer refers to a bearing in the form of a separate physical component or to a bearing relationship between two other components.

[1]Hammar Maskin AB v Steelbro New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZCA 83 per Glazebrook, Ellen France and Baragwanath JJ.

[2]Hammar Maskin AB v Steelbro New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2006-409-000977, 8 October 2008, per Panckhurst J.

[2]        Neither party takes issue with this Court's statement of the rules for interpretation of a patent claim in Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd[3].  The current contention is about how the Court of Appeal applied those rules in the particular case.  We are not persuaded that the applicant has raised any arguable matter which is of significance other than to the parties themselves nor, in light of the principles stated in Lucas, is there any appearance of error of such a substantial character that it would be repugnant to justice to allow it to go uncorrected.  The conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal cannot be said to be obviously wrong.

[3]      Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 721 (SC) at [25]–[28].

Solicitors:

Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Applicant

Henry Hughes & Co, Wellington for Respondents