Environmental Technologies Inc (EPI) & Anor v Symphony Plastic Technologies Plc & Anor

Environmental Technologies Inc (EPI) & Anor v Symphony Plastic Technologies Plc & Anor

The trial judge's finding that Symphony did not copy EPI's DCP509 additive was not shown to be wrong. The evidence did not establish copying, and the burden of proof remained on EPI. The appeal was dismissed as the factual foundation for breach of contract and confidence was not made out.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: EPI Environmental Technologies Inc; Claimant/appellant: EPI Environmental Products Inc; Defendant/respondent: Symphony Plastic Technologies plc; Defendant/respondent: Symphony Environmental Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Secrets, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Contract, Burden of Proof, Reverse Engineering
Intellectual Property Contract Law Confidential Information Trade Secrets Breach of Confidence Breach of Contract Burden of Proof Reverse Engineering

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

Parties

EPI Environmental Technologies Inc

Claimant/appellant

EPI Environmental Products Inc

Claimant/appellant

Symphony Plastic Technologies plc

Defendant/respondent

Symphony Environmental Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Symphony copied EPI's DCP509 additive in breach of contract and confidence
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof shifted to Symphony to prove independent derivation
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established copying or independent creation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's finding that Symphony did not copy EPI's DCP509 additive was not shown to be wrong. The evidence did not establish copying, and the burden of proof remained on EPI. The appeal was dismissed as the factual foundation for breach of contract and confidence was not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Nominal damages of £2.00 for non-return of documents under clause 14.4 upheld