In proceedings already heard the defendant had been found liable for patent infringement, and damages remained to be assessed. They claimed for loss of profits and royalties, and for damages through dilution of the market. The claimants said that to recover damages for price reduction they needed only to prove that the wrongful acts of the defendant caused them to reduce their prices. The defendants contended they must prove that a cause of the price reduction was the use of the infringing process.
Held: The calculation cannot be an exact mathematical one. The requirements for causation and forseeability were satisfied in this case. The defendants appeal was allowed but only to the extent of requiring the claimant to replead its case.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Kay
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 296, [2004] FSR 34
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Tire v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited HL 1975
The object of damages is to compensate for loss or injury. The general rule for ‘economic’ torts is that the measure is that sum of money which will put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the . .
Cited – Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Puncture Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd 1899
There are two essential principles in valuing a claim for damages: first, that the plaintiffs must prove their loss: second, that the defendants being wrong-doers, damages should be liberally assessed but that the object is to compensate the . .
Cited – Boyd v The Tootal Broadhurst Lee Co 1894
In a claim for damages for infringement of a patent, the plaintiff manufacturers proved that a profit of 7s. per spindle would have been made, and settlements of litigation for lesser rates were discarded. . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Cited – Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd HL 1982
The plaintiffs had been established as market leaders with their patented construction, had ample production capacity and stocks, but had never granted any licence under their patent. The patent was for a novel type of galvanised steel lintel, which . .
Cited – Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Limited Lectra Systemes SA CA 18-Dec-1996
The plaintiffs claimed damages for patent infringement. Some of the lost profits for which the plaintiff company claimed damages were suffered by subsidiary companies in which it held all the shares.
Held: When a shareholder has a cause of . .
Cited – Gorris v Scott 22-Apr-1874
In the case of a statutory duty, the scope of the duty is answered by deducing the purpose of the duty from the language and context of the statute. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Damages
Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.179740