Flitcraft Limited & Ors v Philip Price & Anor

Flitcraft Limited & Ors v Philip Price & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to permit Supawall to amend to join the Official Receiver as proprietor under section 67(3) of the Patents Act 1977, as the requirement is procedural and did not fundamentally alter Supawall’s claim. The judge’s apportionment of costs between Mr Price and Supawall was within his discretion, reflecting the distinct claims and the time spent on issues unique to Mr Price. The construction of the exclusive licence did not extinguish Supawall’s right to bring proceedings. Dishonest conduct by Mr Price and Mr Middleton was properly penalised in costs.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Flitcraft Limited; Appellant/respondent: Garry Flitcroft; Appellant/respondent: Thomas Flitcroft; Respondent/appellant: Philip Price; Respondent/appellant: Supawall Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed except for setting aside interim payment against Supawall
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Exclusive Licence, Costs Orders, Joinder of Parties, Fraudulent Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Exclusive Licence Costs Orders Joinder of Parties Fraudulent Evidence

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

Parties

Flitcraft Limited

Appellant/respondent

Garry Flitcroft

Appellant/respondent

Thomas Flitcroft

Appellant/respondent

Philip Price

Respondent/appellant

Supawall Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in permitting Supawall to amend to join the Official Receiver as proprietor under section 67(3) of the Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether Supawall should pay all costs up to the date of amendment if joinder allowed
  3. 3 Whether the construction of the exclusive licence extinguished Supawall’s claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to permit Supawall to amend to join the Official Receiver as proprietor under section 67(3) of the Patents Act 1977, as the requirement is procedural and did not fundamentally alter Supawall’s claim. The judge’s apportionment of costs between Mr Price and Supawall was within his discretion, reflecting the distinct claims and the time spent on issues unique to Mr Price. The construction of the exclusive licence did not extinguish Supawall’s right to bring proceedings. Dishonest conduct by Mr Price and Mr Middleton was properly penalised in costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed except for setting aside interim payment against Supawall

Orders

  • Flitcraft’s appeal dismissed in full
  • Costs appeal by Mr Price and Supawall dismissed except interim payment against Supawall set aside