HAMMAR Welcomes Appeal Court Ruling

HAMMAR Welcomes Appeal Court Sideloader Patent Ruling

Swedish company HAMMAR has welcomed the judgment by New Zealand’s Court of Appeal that Christchurch-based Steelbro infringed HAMMAR’s patent on a new stabiliser leg design for a truck/trailer mounted sideloader used to load and off-load containers, in which the stabiliser leg is stowed in a ‘negative’ inclination.

“The decision upholds the patent that Mr Hammar took out on his development of the new stabiliser legs introduced on our HAMMAR™ 195 sideloader in 1998,” says Fred Sandberg, Managing Director of HAMMAR New Zealand.

HAMMAR is the world leader in the design and production of sideloaders and has been present in the New Zealand market since 1992. The company specialises in high quality products, featuring Swedish componentry and steel, to deliver a strong and reliable sideloader.

The key to the success of the HAMMAR™ 195 sideloader is that the stabiliser leg is folded in a negative inclination beyond the horizontal position, which saves space. With the ends of the support sleeves being bevelled there is a 300mm gain in reach when the stabiliser is extended to vertical, and with the stabiliser fully extended the 300mm is an enormous benefit to the stability of the vehicle during load and unloading compare to previous designs.

In 2004 Steelbro introduced its SB361 and 401 sidelifters with a ‘negatively’ stowed stabiliser leg. HAMMAR took Steelbro to the High Court in 2008 claiming, among other things, patent infringement. Although HAMMAR’s patent was found to be valid, the High Court found that the Steelbro products did not infringe.

In the High Court decision the use of the phrase “in a bearing” in claim 1 of the patent was construed to mean that the stabiliser leg included a separate bearing component. Steelbro argued, and the High Court judge agreed, that the Steelbro stabiliser leg did not contain a separate bearing.

HAMMAR appealed the part of the judgment relating to the ‘bearing’ issue and Steelbro cross-appealed on the ground that the judge was wrong to consider the words “connected to” in claim 1 of the patent could cover an indirect connection, via a platform, between the pivot pin and the chassis, and on a further ground that the patent was invalid because the claimed invention did not meet the stated object of the invention.

The Appeal Court judges, however, agreed with HAMMAR, noting in their finding: “In our view Hammar’s interpretation of the claim, which adopts a functional view of the term ‘bearing’, provides an orthodox description of the relationship between two parts which interact by the movement of one against the other and/or where one bears some of its load on the other.”

“Further, there is no separate physical bearing shown in the drawings. If there was intended to be an additional integer in the form of a separate physical bearing then, one would expect that to appear in the specification and the drawings. Instead, what permeates the whole of the specification is the functional concept of bearing. We consider that, taking a purposive approach to the construction of the patent and construing claim 1 in the context of the specification as a whole, the term ‘bearing’ in claim 1 is used in a functional sense. This means that Hammar’s construction is the correct construction. No separate physical bearing component is required.”

The Appeal Court judges also dismissed the cross-appeal by Steelbro. The Court of Appeal did not consider that the phrase “connected to” in the context of the patent implied that the pivot pin must be “directly attached” to the chassis.

Costs were awarded to HAMMAR against Steelbro.

ENDS

© Scoop Media