Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verifi LLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC) (07 February 2024)

Cloud Cycle Ltd v Verifi LLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC) (07 February 2024)

Summary judgment was refused because the evidence on whether CCL's system deletes stored measurements was unclear and required expert evidence, and the defendants had a real prospect of establishing infringement by equivalence at trial. Interim injunction was refused because the balance of irremediable prejudice favoured CCL: the risk to GCP from no injunction was limited and compensable, while the risk to CCL from an injunction was existential and could threaten its business viability.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: Cloud Cycle Limited; First Defendant: Verifi LLC; Second Defendant: GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Non Infringement Declaration / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Interim Injunction
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; interim injunction application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment in Patent Cases, Interim Injunctions, Doctrine of Equivalents, Claim Construction, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Patents Summary Judgment in Patent Cases Interim Injunctions Doctrine of Equivalents Claim Construction Balance of Convenience

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cloud Cycle Limited

Claimant

Verifi LLC

First Defendant

GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Non Infringement Declaration / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted declaring non-infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 1 720 689
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining alleged infringement pending trial

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because the evidence on whether CCL's system deletes stored measurements was unclear and required expert evidence, and the defendants had a real prospect of establishing infringement by equivalence at trial. Interim injunction was refused because the balance of irremediable prejudice favoured CCL: the risk to GCP from no injunction was limited and compensable, while the risk to CCL from an injunction was existential and could threaten its business viability.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; interim injunction application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment by CCL dismissed.
  • Application for interim injunction by defendants dismissed.