The plaintiffs had alleged patent infringement and now sought to recover the costs of the action it had had to take for discovery as against HM Customs and Excise, which they said had been necessary to discover the extent of the concealed fraud alleged against the defendants. As a result of the concealment the plaintiffs sought in addition damages going back before normal limitation periods, and exemplary damages.
Held: The costs claimed were forseeable and recoverable. The limitation period did not commence until the fraud was or could have been discovered. Exemplary damages were to be seen as exceptional in Patent infringement cases and in this case were not recoverable. Concealed fraud could be established by showing that the defendants had turned a blind eye to the infringing acts of others.
Judges:
Graham J
Citations:
[1981] FSR 337
Statutes:
Patents Act 1949 63 101, Limitation Act 1939 26
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Phonographic Performance Ltd v Reader ChD 22-Mar-2005
The claimant had in the past obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant broadcasting without their licence musical works belonging to their members at his nightclub. The defendant had obtained a licence, but had not renewed it. The claimants in . .
Cited – Oxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec Ltd PatC 5-Sep-2008
The parties disputed the meaning of an patent and know how licence. The parties disputed whether the agreement referred to IP rights before formal patents had been granted despite the terms of the agreement.
Held: ‘The secret of drafting legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Damages
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272762