SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors [2013] EWPCC 31 (14 June 2013)

SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors [2013] EWPCC 31 (14 June 2013)

MDL is an exclusive licensee and entitled to sue, but the SDL Products do not infringe the patent because their heating mechanism does not involve a control signal as required by the patent claims. The communications sent by NRL parties constitute actionable threats under s.70 Patents Act 1977, are not saved by s.70(4) or s.70(5), and Mr. Rae is personally liable for the threats. Therefore, the Threats Action succeeds and the Infringement Action fails.

Citation
[2013] EWPCC 31
Parties
Claimant (threats Action) / Defendant (infringement Action): SDL Hair Limited; Defendant (threats Action) / Passive Defendant (infringement Action): Next Row Limited; Defendant (threats Action): RMG Hair Limited; Defendant (threats Action): Unil C9 Limited; Defendant (threats Action): Gavin Rae; Claimant (infringement Action): Master Distributor Limited; Defendant (infringement Action): Alan Howard (Stockport) Limited; Defendant (infringement Action): Hair@Jibe Limited (t/a Jibe); Defendant (infringement Action): Brand Performance Limited; Defendant (infringement Action): Brand Performance (UK) Limited; Defendant (infringement Action): Salons Direct Limited; Defendant (infringement Action): Next Row Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Threats Actions (consolidated) / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Threats Action succeeds; Infringement Action fails.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Groundless Threats, Exclusive Licensee Status, Claim Construction, Personal Liability for Threats
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Infringement Groundless Threats Exclusive Licensee Status Claim Construction Personal Liability for Threats

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SDL Hair Limited

Claimant (threats Action) / Defendant (infringement Action)

Next Row Limited

Defendant (threats Action) / Passive Defendant (infringement Action)

RMG Hair Limited

Defendant (threats Action)

Unil C9 Limited

Defendant (threats Action)

Gavin Rae

Defendant (threats Action)

Master Distributor Limited

Claimant (infringement Action)

Alan Howard (Stockport) Limited

Defendant (infringement Action)

Hair@Jibe Limited (t/a Jibe)

Defendant (infringement Action)

Brand Performance Limited

Defendant (infringement Action)

Brand Performance (UK) Limited

Defendant (infringement Action)

Salons Direct Limited

Defendant (infringement Action)

Next Row Limited

Defendant (infringement Action)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Threats Actions (consolidated) / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Master Distributor Limited is an exclusive licensee entitled to sue for infringement
  2. 2 Whether SDL Products infringe UK Patent GB 2 472 483
  3. 3 Whether communications sent by NRL parties constitute actionable threats under s.70 Patents Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

MDL is an exclusive licensee and entitled to sue, but the SDL Products do not infringe the patent because their heating mechanism does not involve a control signal as required by the patent claims. The communications sent by NRL parties constitute actionable threats under s.70 Patents Act 1977, are not saved by s.70(4) or s.70(5), and Mr. Rae is personally liable for the threats. Therefore, the Threats Action succeeds and the Infringement Action fails.

Court Disposition

Threats Action succeeds; Infringement Action fails.

Orders

  • Declaration that the SDL Products do not infringe UK Patent GB 2 472 483.
  • Declaration that the communications complained of constitute actionable threats under s.70 Patents Act 1977.