Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltdv H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltdv H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd

The settlement agreement between Stretchline and H&M was intended to compromise all disputes between them, including the issue of 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 the issue of validity by way of defence or counterclaim in response to claims for breach of contract or infringement. The parties are reasonably to be taken to have intended that the release should apply to claims of the kind now in issue, and there was no evidence that H&M could not have contemplated the possibility of alternative tests for patent infringement at the time of the agreement.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Parts of Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Contractual Interpretation, Release of Claims
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Settlement Agreements Patent Infringement Patent Validity Contractual 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Parts of Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement precludes H&M from challenging the validity of the Patent by way of defence or counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Stretchline is entitled to pursue a claim for infringement in parallel with breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether a change in the construction of the Patent affects the scope of the release and the ability to challenge validity

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement between Stretchline and H&M was intended to compromise all disputes between them, including the issue of 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 the issue of validity by way of defence or counterclaim in response to claims for breach of contract or infringement. The parties are reasonably to be taken to have intended that the release should apply to claims of the kind now in issue, and there was no evidence that H&M could not have contemplated the possibility of alternative tests for patent infringement at the time of the agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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