Zhang v Sealegs International Ltd

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeBrown J
Judgment Date27 August 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] NZCA 389
CourtCourt of Appeal
Docket NumberCA454/2018
Date27 August 2019
First Appellant
Second Appellants
Smuggler Marine Limited
Third Appellant
Darren Leybourne
Fourth Appellant
Vladan Zubcic
Fifth Appellant
David Pringle
Sixth Appellant
Stryda Marine Limited
Seventh Appellant
Sealegs International Limited

[2019] NZCA 389


French, Cooper and Brown JJ




Intellectual Property — breach of copyright — collocation-based copyright claim comprising known functional components and the application of well-known engineering mechanisms and principles — conceptual distinction between ideas and their expression — Copyright Act 1994


J G Miles QC and A K Hyde for Appellants

B P Henry, K M Elcoat and S S Singh for Respondent

  • A The appeal is allowed. The orders in the High Court are set aside.

  • B The respondent must pay the appellants one set of costs for a complex appeal on a band B basis plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.

Table of Contents

Para No



Relevant facts


Mr Bryham's idea


Two concept boats


Prototype boat 1


Mr Leybourne and Mr Zubcic join Sealegs


Prototype boat 136


The SL100 project


Mr Leybourne forms Orion Marine Ltd


The 2015 Shanghai Boat Show


Smuggler Marine and Sealegs


Prototype IKA11


Orion provides its amphibious system to Smuggler


Sealegs' intellectual property rights


NZ Patent 526705


Design registration 403199




The changes in the formulation of Sealegs' copyright claim


The pleaded claim


Sealegs' case at trial


The report of the conference of experts


The High Court judgment


Scope of appeal


The relevant copyright work: identification


Ideas and their expression: patent vs copyright


Were the prototypes “models”?


Was the arrangement of features original?


Infringement — principles


Objective similarity?


The High Court's finding


Errors in approach


Functional resemblance — the third error


Dimensions and geometry — the fourth error


Our analysis


The relevance of an engineer's perspective


A failure to take account of the appellants' expert evidence?


Undue reliance on credibility issues?





(Given by Brown J)


Sealegs International Ltd (Sealegs) asserts copyright in models 1 in the form of prototypes of its arrangement of known mechanical components comprising the wheel assemblies of its amphibious system externally located on the hulls of boats. The copyright is said to be the expression of the novel idea to place wheel assemblies on the exterior of a boat hull which are retractable to visible positions outside the hull form, thereby providing a solution to the problem of amphibious capability for small craft.


Sealegs claimed that its collocation-based copyright was infringed by the amphibious system developed by the second appellants (Orion). It also contended that Orion had infringed Sealegs' registered design. However it elected not to sue for patent infringement.


In the High Court Davison J held that the arrangement of components comprising the central core of the Sealegs amphibious boat system was highly original and was appropriated by the design of the Orion amphibious system. 2 Differences identified between the systems were discounted because they did not alter the leg assemblies' fundamental functionality. Sealegs' registered design claim was dismissed.


The appellants challenge the High Court's findings of originality and objective similarity, and the rejection of their claimed independent design path. They contend that the judgment fundamentally misconceives the law of copyright with the consequence that Sealegs has been granted an unprecedented monopoly in a collocation of known functional components, untethered to any visual expression. While acknowledging that they adopted Sealegs' idea, they maintain that the Orion

arrangement was not a copyright infringement but inevitably derived from functional constraints

Hence in the context of a collocation-based copyright claim comprising known functional components and the application of well-known engineering mechanisms and principles, the parties' cases trod the notoriously ill-defined boundary between ideas and their expression.

Relevant facts
Mr Bryham's idea

Mr Maurice Bryham, an Auckland beachside resident, was inspired to design and construct an amphibious system comprising three supporting legs and powered wheels which when attached to a powerboat enabled it to be manoeuvred while on land, driven from the beach into the water and the legs then retracted when the boat was afloat. Such a product, which would provide the convenience and safety of a boat that could be launched and returned to land without the occupants having to leave the boat, was expected to appeal to the high end of the recreational boating market. He named the design “Sealegs” and incorporated the respondent on 10 May 2000. All his work on the prototypes for the Sealegs amphibious boat system was undertaken as its employee.


Mr Bryham explained why he considered his idea was unique:

4 There are many, many ways to achieve a design of a three-legged amphibious boat system. These include the use of hull recesses with opening flap doors, vertically lifting and lowering wheels, or having wheels that deploy from the side of the hull. The decision I made was unique at the time, as the way I conceived to achieve the retraction of wheels from a boat is to have the wheels, the legs, the retraction actuator and the front steering actuator all located outside the hull leaving the boat streamlined in the water when underway.

5 Other solutions are to have the wheels, legs, retraction actuator, and/or steering actuator partly inside and partly outside of the boat hull. The combinations available to a designer are many and varied.

6 I thought it would be better to have the legs and retraction assembly attached to the outside of the hull with the legs and the retraction actuators all externally mounted. When the legs were retracted, the wheels would be lifted and stored above the boat waterline.

This concept maintained the integrity of the hull, but resulted in the external attachments of the legs, wheels, retraction actuator and front steering actuator.

Hence his idea was not merely an amphibious boat, as the written submissions for Sealegs suggested, but rather, as his reply brief described, the unusual design decision to have all the motorised wheels and amphibious assemblies located outside the watertight hull in both land and water positions”. 3


Mr Bryham also experimented with another design in which the legs when retracted were substantially concealed and enclosed within recesses built into the hull of the boat. He obtained design registration 403199 in relation to that design. However he did not seek registration of the design which was the subject of the copyright claim.

Two concept boats

The first stage in Mr Bryham's design endeavours was known as “concept boat 1”. He purchased a 4.7 metre rigid inflatable boat (RIB) and built wooden mock-ups of legs and wheels to create a pattern for the external legs and to work out the placement of the leg pivot points and actuator connection points on the hull, as well as the geometry of the movement they were required to perform in order to extend and retract externally of the boat. He then had the pattern of his wooden mock-ups replicated by a stainless-steel fabricator. The front and rear legs on concept boat 1 were lifted out of the water manually and the rear wheels were electrically driven. The front wheel was steered by means of an external actuator. Having assembled the legs and attached the amphibious leg system onto the RIB in his home garage, he tested concept boat 1 by driving it from his garage to the nearby beach and into and out of the water.


Mr Bryham and Sealegs further developed the design by means of “concept boat 2”, again purchasing a standard RIB for modification. The fourth appellant, Mr Leybourne, then the owner and principal of Central Hydraulics Services Ltd, was engaged to provide advice regarding the hydraulics system required to power the

actuators which would extend and retract the legs and to power the hydraulic motors used to drive the rear wheels

The modifications introduced by concept boat 2 were described in the High Court judgment in this way:

[17] The concept boat 2 model had the hydraulic retraction system of the front leg located inside the hull. Part of the front wheel steering system was also contained inside the hull. The front wheel was secured by an inverted “U” shaped fork, and the rear legs were retractable by means of an external hydraulic lift cylinder. In the course of its development the system initially used electric motors to drive the wheels, then hydrostatic drive, then mechanical drive, before hydraulic power was finally selected to drive the wheels. The hydraulic drive system for the rear wheels used a hydraulic motor located inside the hull with chains running inside the rear legs, which had larger wheels and tyres with a more defined tread than had been used previously on concept boat 1.


Informed by the development of concept boat 2, Sealegs and Mr Bryham proceeded to construct what became “prototype boat 1”, the first of three prototypes which ultimately formed the basis of the copyright...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Intech Inc v Anura Limited
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 25 March 2022
    ...struggling to allocate more time to the project. He said he should be at the assembly stage in 10 11 Zhang v Sealegs International Ltd [2019] NZCA 389, [2020] 2 NZLR Sealegs International Ltd v Zhang [2019] NZSC 147. January 2021 and hoped to complete testing by the end of April 2021 and to......
  • Orion Marine Ltd v Sealegs International Ltd
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 26 November 2021
    ...to bring the patent claim would cause 1 2 3 4 Sealegs International Ltd v Zhang [2018] NZHC 1724. Zhang v Sealegs International Limited [2019] NZCA 389, [2020] 2 NZLR Sealegs International Ltd v Zhang [2019] NZSC 147. Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313 (Ch). unjustifiable prejudice to t......
  • Sealegs International Limited v Yun Zhang
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 13 December 2019
    ...of general or public 1 2 3 4 Sealegs International Ltd v Zhang [2018] NZHC 1724 (Paul Davison J). Zhang v Sealegs International Ltd [2019] NZCA 389 (French, Cooper and Brown Oraka Technologies Ltd v Geostel Vision Ltd [2013] NZCA 111 (Glazebrook, Randerson and Stevens JJ). Steelbro NZ Ltd v......
  • Intech Inc v Wareham Steamship Corporation
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 26 August 2022
    ...the defendants agreed to transfer rights in the S25 as consideration for Mr Baker’s advance 5 6 7 8 Zhang v Sealegs International Ltd [2019] NZCA 389, [2020] 2 NZLR 308. In December the Supreme Court dismissed Sealegs’ application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment; see Seal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT