The defendants wanted to defend their patent against a possible infringement. There were negotiations, following which the defendants wrote claiming damages or licence fees. The claimant asserted that the letter constituted a threat. The defendant argued justification.
Held: The court has to determine in all the circumstances not only whether a threat was made but also its extent. The letter was not part of the without prejudice negotiations, but a simple demand. Letters had also been written to potential customers of the plaintiffs. As to the allegation of infringement, the patents were limited in their scope, and the proposed products included elements which made them non-infringing.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2328 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cavity Trays Ltd v RMC Panels Products Ltd CA 1996
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 . .
Cited – Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.227073