Clinisupplies Ltd v Park & Ors

Clinisupplies Ltd v Park & Ors

The aspects of the Vesica product pleaded by CliniSupplies as design rights are either methods or principles of construction, or are too abstract and conceptual to constitute a 'design' within the meaning of section 213(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Therefore, the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for claiming design right, and the claim must be struck out. Alternatively, there is no real prospect of success and summary judgment is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: CliniSupplies Limited; First Defendant: Karen Park; Second Defendant: Richardson Healthcare Limited; Third Defendant: Mayur Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claim for infringement of design right struck out; alternatively, summary judgment granted for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Design Right, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Method or Principle of Construction, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Intellectual Property Design Right Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Method or Principle of Construction Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CliniSupplies Limited

Claimant

Karen Park

First Defendant

Richardson Healthcare Limited

Second Defendant

Mayur Patel

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleaded aspects of the Vesica product are protectable as unregistered design rights under section 213 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded aspects are excluded as a method or principle of construction under section 213(3)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds or a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The aspects of the Vesica product pleaded by CliniSupplies as design rights are either methods or principles of construction, or are too abstract and conceptual to constitute a 'design' within the meaning of section 213(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Therefore, the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for claiming design right, and the claim must be struck out. Alternatively, there is no real prospect of success and summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement of design right struck out; alternatively, summary judgment granted for the defendants.

Orders

  • CliniSupplies' claim for infringement of design right is struck out.
  • Alternatively, summary judgment is granted dismissing the claim.