The meaning of an alleged threat is to be decided in accordance with the understanding of an ordinary recipient in the position of the applicant, reading the letter in the normal course of business. Laddie J said: ‘the meaning and impact of the letters in issue has to be decided in accordance with how they would be understood by an ordinary reader . . What is particularly important is the initial impression which the letters would have on a reasonable addressee. During court proceedings, it is inevitable that the lawyers, parties and judge will read and re-read the offending passages with ever closer attention. Such meticulous analysis is not what would happen in the real world and the court must guard against being led down a path of forensic analysis to a meaning which is narrower or broader than would occur to the ordinary recipient reading the letter . . in the normal course of business’
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[1997] FSR 51
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Brain v Ingledew Brown Benson and Garrett and Another ChD 18-Apr-1995
A threats of an infringement claim regarding acts of the addressee between the Patent application being filed and the grant of the patent are actionable under the threat action procedure. . .
See Also – Brain v Ingledew Brown Benson and Garrett and Another CA 1996
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.420495