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 seen immediately that it is consistent with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly since it can be properly viewed as a means of imposing a sanction in relation to waste caused by lack of diligence by the defendant.’
Judges:
Pumfrey J
Citations:
[2002] FSR 67
Citing:
Cited – Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd CA 3-Feb-1876
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc CA 8-Nov-2011
The parties had litigated the validity of a patent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.448486