• Intellectual Property Rights

Virgin Atlantic Airways vs Premium Aircraft Interiors Group Limited 

High Court of Justice Chancery Division Patents Court 

How does a business class passenger choose an airline? If you believe the advertising, the comfort of the seat is one of the most important factors. But it is not just the advertising. When Virgin Atlantic introduced its flat-bed seat into its Upper Class in November 2003 it achieved an increase in market share on its long haul routes of 12 per cent. So the numbers tell the same story. Virgin Atlantic's flat-bed seat is known as the Upper Class Suite (or "UCS") and is the commercialisation of a seat and seating system disclosed by patent EP (UK) 1,495,908 (the "908 patent"). The UCS was manufactured for Virgin Atlantic by Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd (known as "Contour"). Virgin Atlantic allege that Contour has manufactured other seats (known as "Rock" or "Solar Eclipse", and a derivative called "Solar Premiere"), or kits for those seats, that infringe the 908 patent; and also allege that in working up the detailed designs of those seats Contour and its external designers, Acumen, have infringed its unregistered design rights in parts of the UCS.

Virgin Atlantic have failed to prove that Contour copied its designs, and consequently the claim for infringement of unregistered design right fails. The patent in suit is valid but not infringed.

• CIVIL

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Dredger Kamal XXVI vs The Owners of Ariela  

England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions 

The Defendants' vessel collided with the Claimants' hopper barge,  in the entrance channel to Mormugao Port, Goa, India, causing the barge to collide with the adjacent dredger Kamal XXVI. Liability was contested but, in a judgment ([2007] EWHC 243 (Comm)) handed down on 23 October 2007, David Steel J found, after a two-day hearing, that the Ariela was at fault, and gave judgment for the Claimants. The damage to the Ariela was minimal, but the Claimants' claim totalled US$ 1,296,583, consisting of US$ 681,423 repair costs, and US$ 484,584 for loss of use, in respect of the dredger, and US$ 65,139 repair costs, and US$ 52,600 towage and loss of use, in respect of the barge, plus 1% 'business disruption' or 'agency'. By the time that Mr Buckingham of Counsel rose to open the quantum hearing before me, this claim of US$ 1,296,583 had been reconsidered by the Claimants and reduced to US$ 942,670.

Burton J, however, ruled that he was entirely satisfied here however that the Claimants have failed to prove that any fresh damage was caused to the barge by this collision. He was persuaded by the Defendants that the Ariela presented a huge high flat wall of steel to the barge, which extended well above the top and well below the bottom of the barge, and that there is no reason, given the existence of the fenders, to conclude that any damage was caused to the port aft of the barge, as alleged. In any event, he was not satisfied that any of the substantial repair costs to the barge of R 2,463,215, or the purportedly apportioned costs of R 719,355, can be attributable to the Defendants or are recoverable against the Defendants by the Claimants. In the circumstances, all claims by the Claimants against the Defendants are dismissed, save in the sum of US$ 6245 in respect of item 1(c).