QMC Instruments Limited v Celtic Terahertz Technology Limited & Ors

QMC Instruments Limited v Celtic Terahertz Technology Limited & Ors

The claims raise triable issues of fact and law regarding the construction of the 1991 and 2001 agreements, the scope of any exclusive rights, and the existence of equitable duties; the evidence is insufficiently particularised for summary judgment, and the matter requires a full trial.

Parties
Claimant: QMC Instruments Limited; First Defendant: Celtic Terahertz Technology Limited; Second Defendant: Cardiff University; Third Defendant: Carol Tucker; Fourth Defendant: Ken Wood; Fifth Defendant: Peter Ade
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Claim / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; directions for mediation and costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Exclusive Licence, Copyright Infringement, Know How, Derivative Claim, Summary Judgment, Equitable Relief, Interpretation of Contracts, Costs
Intellectual Property Contract Equity Exclusive Licence Copyright Infringement Know How Derivative Claim Summary Judgment +3 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QMC Instruments Limited

Claimant

Celtic Terahertz Technology Limited

First Defendant

Cardiff University

Second Defendant

Carol Tucker

Third Defendant

Ken Wood

Fourth Defendant

Peter Ade

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Claim / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether QMCIL holds exclusive rights to intellectual property in MMFs under 1991 and 2001 agreements
  2. 2 Whether the 2001 agreement grants QMCIL an extant exclusive licence to MMF-related IP
  3. 3 Whether Cardiff University owes equitable duties to QMCIL

Ratio Decidendi

The claims raise triable issues of fact and law regarding the construction of the 1991 and 2001 agreements, the scope of any exclusive rights, and the existence of equitable duties; the evidence is insufficiently particularised for summary judgment, and the matter requires a full trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; directions for mediation and costs orders made.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment refused.
  • Parties directed to mediate with a stay until end of February.