Where a patentee sues for infringement and then discontinues his claim against the alleged infringer and consents to the revocation of his patent, he may yet require the alleged infringer to pay a substantial proportion of his costs if he can show that this situation came about because the alleged infringer had amended his defence and counterclaim to plead a new piece of prior art.
Citations:
Unreported, 3 February 1876
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – See v Scott-Paine 1933
The court granted an order allowing amendments applied for, but then to give the applicant a period of time in which to consider, in light of the amendments, whether it wished to maintain that the patent or design in suit was valid and continue with . .
Cited – Williamson v Moldline Limited and Others 1986
The purpose of a Scott-Paine order is to impose on a party attacking the validity of a patent the obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that the full attack is put before the patentee at the earliest time. The imposition of that obligation . .
Cited – Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303, Inc ChD 12-Oct-2011
The claimant sought an order debarring the defendant from relying on any evidence to support their case at the forthcoming trial for the revocation of a patent. . .
Cited – Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc CA 8-Nov-2011
The parties had litigated the validity of a patent. . .
Cited – Edison Telephone Company v India Rubber Company 1881
. .
Cited – Ungar v Sugg 1892
Lord Esher MR discussed the costs of patent infringement litigation: ‘Well, then, the moment there is a patent case one can see it before the case is opened, or called in the list. How can we see it? We can see it by a pile of books as high as this . .
Cited – In re GEC Alsthom Limited’s Patent ChD 1996
Laddie J pointed out a number of injustices that could be produced by the making of an Earth Closet order, including: ‘i) Such an order was a disincentive to a defendant to plead his best case, particularly since prior art from all over the world . .
Cited – CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd ChD 2002
Pumfrey J held that an Earth Closet order was not incompatible with the CPR. His reason was that such an order was not incompatible with the overriding objective: ‘That being the existing state of the law prior to the Civil Procedure Rules it may be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Costs
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.448482