Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors

Price & Ors v Flitcraft Ltd & Ors

The appeal was allowed because the further evidence raised triable issues regarding the chain of title to the patents and copyrights, the summary judgment application was procedurally defective, and Flitcraft's amended defence (supported by new evidence) provided a real prospect of success. The Recorder erred in granting summary judgment in the face of factual disputes and procedural irregularities.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Philip Price; Claimant/respondent: Supawall Limited; Claimant/respondent: Supahome by Maple Limited; Defendant/appellant: Flitcraft Limited; Defendant/appellant: Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited; Defendant/appellant: Garry Flitcroft; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Flitcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Passing Off, Summary Judgment, Procedural Irregularity
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Copyright Infringement Passing Off Summary Judgment Procedural Irregularity

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Price

Claimant/respondent

Supawall Limited

Claimant/respondent

Supahome by Maple Limited

Claimant/respondent

Flitcraft Limited

Defendant/appellant

Flitcraft Timber Frame Limited

Defendant/appellant

Garry Flitcroft

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Flitcroft

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants (Flitcraft) had a real prospect of defending the patent and copyright infringement claims
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was properly granted in favour of the respondents (Supawall)
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in the summary judgment application rendered the decision unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the further evidence raised triable issues regarding the chain of title to the patents and copyrights, the summary judgment application was procedurally defective, and Flitcraft's amended defence (supported by new evidence) provided a real prospect of success. The Recorder erred in granting summary judgment in the face of factual disputes and procedural irregularities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Further evidence admitted
  • Permission granted to re-re-amend the defence