Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltdv H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 516 (22 May 2015)

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltdv H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 516 (22 May 2015)

The settlement agreement, properly construed, was intended to bring finality to all disputes between the parties, including any challenge to the validity of the patent. The language of the agreement, including the release and agreement not to sue, was sufficiently broad to preclude H&M from raising patent invalidity as a defence or counterclaim in subsequent proceedings relating to the same subject matter. There was no evidence that the parties intended to limit the release to a particular construction of the patent or to exclude future challenges based on different tests or interpretations.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 516
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd; Defendant/appellant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Settlement Agreements, Contract Interpretation, Release of Claims
Intellectual Property Contract Law Patent Infringement Patent Validity Settlement Agreements Contract Interpretation Release of Claims

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd

Claimant/respondent

H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether H&M is precluded by the settlement agreement from challenging the validity of Stretchline's patent in subsequent proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement bars H&M from raising patent invalidity as a defence or counterclaim to claims for breach of contract and patent infringement

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement, properly construed, was intended to bring finality to all disputes between the parties, including any challenge to the validity of the patent. The language of the agreement, including the release and agreement not to sue, was sufficiently broad to preclude H&M from raising patent invalidity as a defence or counterclaim in subsequent proceedings relating to the same subject matter. There was no evidence that the parties intended to limit the release to a particular construction of the patent or to exclude future challenges based on different tests or interpretations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All parts of H&M's defence and counterclaim challenging the validity of the patent are struck out.