The patentee had succeeded at trial in obtaining a declaration of validity and a determination of infringement, and, in subsequent proceedings, the infringer sought to challenge the validity of the patent by raising a fresh argument based on anticipation.
Held: He was not entitled to do so because the question was res judicata as between the parties.
Bowen LJ: ‘it is a well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance of their rights…. I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy, and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or grace…. It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right.’
Judges:
AL Smith LJ, Bowen LJ
Citations:
[1896] 1 Ch 10
Citing:
Cited – Re Deeley’s Patent 1895
A revocation of a patent for which the Attorney General’s fiat has been obtained is an action taken on behalf of the public at large. . .
Cited – Clarapede and Co v Commercial Union Association 1883
Sir Baliol Brett MR: ‘however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other . .
Appeal from – Shoe Machinery Company v Cutlan (No 2) 1896
Prior litigation had been an infringement action in which the Defendants denied both validity and infringement, and succeeded on infringement but failed on validity and were ordered to pay costs of the validity issue. By the time of the second . .
Cited by:
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247700