The threats provisions may have the effect of making litigation more rather than less likely. The exclusion in the subsection is limited in its scope. It does not give rise to a general entitlement to threaten manufacturers or importers or users. In particular, if a trader both manufactures and sells products and a patentee threatens … Continue reading Cavity Trays Ltd v RMC Panels Products Ltd: CA 1996
The exclusion provided in section 70(4) of the 1977 Act is of limited scope. Whatever the legislative intention, it does not give rise to a general entitlement to threaten manufacturers or importers or users. In particular, if a trader both manufactures and sells products and a patentee threatens him with infringement proceedings in respect of … Continue reading Cavity Trays Ltd v RMC Panel Products Ltd: CA 2 Jan 1996
The parties each made cable mechanisms for cars. There had been a patent dispute in Germany resulting in a finding of infringement, which finding was subject to appeal. A letter was sent in England referring to the German decision, stating that the company intended to enforce its rights. Held: In considering whether it was arguable … Continue reading Bowden Controls Ltd v Acco Cable Controls Ltd: ChD 1990
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted for a Danish Research Institute. They wrote to several parties regarding a patent. B initiated a threat action. IBB appealed against an order striking out their defence, saying that the issue of whether what they said amounted to a threat was a question of fact to be decided … Continue reading Brain v Ingledew Brown Benson and Garrett and Another: CA 1996
In a threat action for trade mark infringement, the plaintiff had only supplied services. The defendant made a general threat without limiting it to proceedings in respect of goods or services. The defendant argued that the threat would be understood as relating only to services, as that is all the plaintiff provided. Held: Section 70 … Continue reading Prince PLC v Prince Sports Group Inc: ChD 1998
