Steelbro New Zealand Limited v Hammar Maskin AB

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Steelbro New Zealand Limited v Hammar Maskin AB, the dispute involved Steelbro challenging the Court of Appeal's decision that it had infringed Hammar's patent for stabiliser legs on sidelifters. These devices are used to stabilise vehicles during the loading and unloading of shipping containers, among other uses. The primary point of contention was the interpretation of a specific part of the patent claim: whether the term "an extension part of which is movably arranged in a bearing in the first support part" referred to a separate physical component or a bearing relationship between two other components.

The legal issues that the Supreme Court had to decide centred on whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted the patent claim in line with established principles of patent law. Steelbro argued that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the meaning of the disputed term, while Hammar defended the Court of Appeal's decision as correct. The Court's task was to determine whether the interpretation provided by the Court of Appeal was sound and whether the principles of patent law were correctly applied.

The Supreme Court found that the interpretation provided by the Court of Appeal was not obviously wrong and did not constitute an error of such a substantial character that it would be repugnant to justice to allow it to go uncorrected. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal's application of the principles of patent claim interpretation, which were derived from the case of Lucas v Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Ltd. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the patent claim was reasonable and that there was no significant error that warranted allowing an appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Steelbro was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established