The claimant appealed against refusal of a committal order to enforce a court order in patent infringement proceedings.
Held: Viscount Simonds said: ‘Thus it is, my Lords, that upon what was a motion for sequestration and committal your Lordships are asked to try an action for infringement of a patent, and, inconvenient though such a procedure may be, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for it, nor that in certain cases it may be an expeditious way in which patentees can enforce their established rights. It may, nevertheless, well be doubted whether in the present case it would not have been a better course if advantage had been taken of the facilities offered by Sec. 66 of the Patents Act, 1949, to have the issue of infringement tried in proceedings unattended by threats of committal and sequestration.’
Viscount Simonds
[1957] RPC 260
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Multiform Displays v Whitmarley Displays CA 1956
Though contempt proceedings must remain a possibility whilst any injunction is running, this procedure is an undesirable and highly inconvenient way of resolving patent infringement disputes. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd PatC 5-Apr-2001
The claimant had obtained injunctive relief against the defendant for patent infringement. Only twelve months of the patent remained, and the claimants applied for an extension of the injunction twelve months beyond the patent expiry, and for other . .
Cited – Grisbrook v MGN Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimant sought an order committing officers of the defendant company for having failed to obey a court order requiring the defendant to cease infrigement of his copyright in photographs. He operated as a photographer of celebrities selling . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.376162
