Philip Price & Ors v Flitcraft Limited & Ors

Philip Price & Ors v Flitcraft Limited & Ors

Costs are apportioned between the parties and claims using a broad brush approach: 75% to patent claims (split 60% to Mr Price, 40% to Supawall), 20% to copyright claims, and 5% to passing off claims. Mr Price pays Defendants' costs of his failed patent and copyright claims (the former on an indemnity basis), Supawall recovers 30% of 75% of Claimants' total costs from the First, Third, and Fourth Defendants, with a deduction for conduct. Claimants pay Defendants' costs of the failed passing off claim. Supawall pays Defendants' costs of the application to join the Official Receiver.

Parties
First Claimant: Philip Price; Second Claimant: Supawall Limited; Third Claimant: Supahome by Maple Limited; First Defendant: Flitcraft Limited; Second Defendant: Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited; Third Defendant: Garry Flitcroft; Fourth Defendant: Thomas Flitcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property (patents) / Judgment on Costs Following Trial
Outcome
Costs apportioned between parties and claims as specified; payment on account to be determined upon further evidence.
Legal Topics
Costs, Patents, Copyright, Passing Off, Exclusive Licence, Apportionment of Costs
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Patents Copyright Passing Off Exclusive Licence Apportionment of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Price

First Claimant

Supawall Limited

Second Claimant

Supahome by Maple Limited

Third Claimant

Flitcraft Limited

First Defendant

Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited

Second Defendant

Garry Flitcroft

Third Defendant

Thomas Flitcroft

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property (patents) / Judgment on Costs Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should costs be apportioned between parties where there are mixed outcomes on patent, copyright, and passing off claims?
  2. 2 Should indemnity costs be awarded due to conduct or false evidence?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate proportion of costs for each claim and party?

Ratio Decidendi

Costs are apportioned between the parties and claims using a broad brush approach: 75% to patent claims (split 60% to Mr Price, 40% to Supawall), 20% to copyright claims, and 5% to passing off claims. Mr Price pays Defendants' costs of his failed patent and copyright claims (the former on an indemnity basis), Supawall recovers 30% of 75% of Claimants' total costs from the First, Third, and Fourth Defendants, with a deduction for conduct. Claimants pay Defendants' costs of the failed passing off claim. Supawall pays Defendants' costs of the application to join the Official Receiver.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned between parties and claims as specified; payment on account to be determined upon further evidence.

Orders

  • Mr Price to pay Defendants' costs of his failed patent claim (60% of 75% of Defendants' total costs) on an indemnity basis.
  • Mr Price to pay Defendants' costs of the copyright claims (20% of Defendants' total costs) on a standard basis.