F1 IN THE HIGH COURT
and Aerolab that they have not infringed the IP rights of Force India in the design of the bodywork for the wind tunnel model, and as there is now no further information flow between Aerolab and Force India, there is no way they could do so in subsequent developments of our aerodynamic design. Even the most simple of investigations on our model will rapidly identify it as unique to our design and different to any other car on the grid.’
Unsurprisingly, Force India saw things differently. There was already ill feeling between them and Aerolab, who had by then instigated legal action to recover the outstanding payments. The team therefore immediately instigated its own legal action claiming IP infringements and breach of copyright.
THE SUM OF ITS PARTS The VJM02 model consisted of around 370 parts, of which about 203 were aerodynamic parts, and the remainder mechanical. Force India alleged that Aerolab and Lotus copied 71 designs. Of these, 57 were designs or precursors of designs for wind tunnel model parts and 14 were assemblies or combinations of individual model part designs. Of the 57 individual model part designs, 36 were for aerodynamic components, the full-size equivalents of 25 of which were visible on the car during the 2009 season. The remaining 21 out of 57 were mechanical wind tunnel model parts which have no equivalent in a full-size car. Of the 36 aerodynamic designs, nine are front wing parts, 12 are wheel barrel and brake duct parts, four are rear diffuser parts, two are rear wing parts and nine are miscellaneous development parts that never made it onto the Force India car. Force India originally claimed
compensation of £15,255,583 ($24,314,975) but, after various amendments, the final figure claimed was £13,771,419 ($21.945,530). This was said to represent the cost to Force India of the design and development of Force India’s model from January 2008 to July 2009, less 50 per cent of the costs for April to July 2009 inclusive. The explanation
FondTech, Aerolab’s parent company released images of the proper T127 model in its wind tunnel when the partnership with Lotus was announced. This time the model had the correct wheels and driver helmet installed
for the deduction is that this represented an estimate of the costs of developing the front wing from the state in which it existed on the model at Aerolab. There was clearly a legitimate case and Aerolab had clearly breached its confidentiality agreement with Force India, and had indeed copied some of the parts of the VJM02 for use on the T127, but these parts were not used to give the T127 pure performance and by no means could the T127 model be claimed to be a copy of the VJM05. The
do reproduce a substantial part of the corresponding Force India CAD files for the following parts: the vortex generator, rear brake duct lower element and rear view mirror.’ The team was found not guilty of any other wrong doing. As a result, Force India was
awarded damages against Aerolab (but not Lotus / Caterham) of €25,000 (£20,900 / $33,325) but, as Force India owed the Italian firm €846,230 (£707,730 / $1,127,960), the Court ruled that the damages should be set off against the
“Predictably, both sides claim victory”
initial Lotus model produced 223.3 points of downforce with an aerodynamic efficiency of 2.512. By comparison, the Force India model to which Aerolab had access as at July 2009 (which did not represent Force India’s most advanced geometry, for the reasons explained) produced about 272 points of downforce with an efficiency of 2.87. The High Court found that
Aerolab had breached Force India’s confidence to an extent, but not to the extent it claims. Lotus Racing was found to have infringed copyright in only one area, as the judge pointed out in his summing up: ‘In my judgment, the Aerolab / FondTech CAD files
36
www.racecar-engineering.com • May 2012
outstanding balance. Predictably, both sides claim victory, with Aerolab issuing a press release titled ‘Aerolab and 1Malaysia Racing Team cleared by High Court in London’, whilst Force India issued its own release entitled ‘Caterham (formerly Team Lotus) and Aerolab found liable for using Force India intellectual property’.
THE MARUSSIA CONNECTION The final twist in the tale emerged shortly before Racecar Engineering closed for press is the involvement of the Marussia team. It has called for the FIA to ‘look vigorously’ into the case. It believes that the situation is a
basic infringement of the FIA’s International Sporting Code, article 151c, which refers to ‘any fraudulent conduct or act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motorsport generally’. This is the same regulation
McLaren was found to have breached in 2007 when it was found to be in unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Ferrari. In that instance, the team was fined $100million and lost its Constructors’ Championship points. If the same penalty was applied to Lotus Racing (Caterham) it would lose its 2010 Constructors’ Championship position of 10th, allowing both HRT and Marussia to move up, something which could be worth as much as £30m in prize money. The FIA has yet to comment
on the matter but, as it has no jurisdiction over Aerolab, if it decides to apply any penalty to Caterham it will have to find out whether it used any of Force India’s IP that was not in the public domain, whether it knew it was doing so, or whether it trusted Aerolab to supply legal designs. Finally, did Gascoyne and his team push Aerolab to take short cuts? One thing that is certain is that the outcome of this case will be held up as an example for future intellectual property cases in motorsport.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100