AP Racing v Alcon Components [2016] EWHC 815 (Ch) (04 March 2016)

AP Racing v Alcon Components [2016] EWHC 815 (Ch) (04 March 2016)

There was no abuse of process in AP Racing including the 7 Calipers in the 2015 Proceedings. The established practice of allowing further infringements to be considered at the damages inquiry applies in the IPEC. AP Racing was not required to identify all possible infringements at the outset, especially where it had requested information from Alcon and was not provided with it. Alcon was neither oppressed nor harassed by the inclusion of the 7 Calipers, and excluding them would unjustly deny AP Racing a trial on arguable infringements.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 815 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: AP Racing; Defendant/appellant: Alcon Components
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Respondent's Notice allowed.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Res Judicata
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Abuse of Process Case Management Res Judicata

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP Racing

Claimant/respondent

Alcon Components

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inclusion of additional alleged patent infringements (the 7 Calipers) in subsequent proceedings constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the usual patent practice of allowing further infringements to be considered at the damages inquiry applies in the IPEC
  3. 3 Whether AP Racing was under a duty to identify all possible infringements at the outset

Ratio Decidendi

There was no abuse of process in AP Racing including the 7 Calipers in the 2015 Proceedings. The established practice of allowing further infringements to be considered at the damages inquiry applies in the IPEC. AP Racing was not required to identify all possible infringements at the outset, especially where it had requested information from Alcon and was not provided with it. Alcon was neither oppressed nor harassed by the inclusion of the 7 Calipers, and excluding them would unjustly deny AP Racing a trial on arguable infringements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Respondent's Notice allowed.

Orders

  • The appeal by Alcon Components is dismissed.
  • The Respondent's Notice by AP Racing is allowed.