Design & Display Ltd v Ooo Abbott & Anor

Design & Display Ltd v Ooo Abbott & Anor

Where the infringing insert is not found to be the essential ingredient in the incorporated panel, only a proportion of the profit attributable to the infringement is recoverable, and the defendant may deduct general overheads if it would have incurred them in lawful trading. The judge erred in law by failing to apportion profits and by misdirecting himself on the law regarding overheads.

Parties
Appellant: Design & Display Limited; Respondent: OOO Abbott; Respondent: Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on Account of Profits After Patent Infringement Finding
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to IPEC for reconsideration of apportionment and overheads deductions.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Account of Profits, Apportionment of Profits, Deduction of Overheads
Intellectual Property Law Patent Infringement Account of Profits Apportionment of Profits Deduction of Overheads

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Design & Display Limited

Appellant

OOO Abbott

Respondent

Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on Account of Profits After Patent Infringement Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to the whole profit on sales of panels with infringing inserts or only a proportion
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to deduct general overheads from the profits for which it is accountable

Ratio Decidendi

Where the infringing insert is not found to be the essential ingredient in the incorporated panel, only a proportion of the profit attributable to the infringement is recoverable, and the defendant may deduct general overheads if it would have incurred them in lawful trading. The judge erred in law by failing to apportion profits and by misdirecting himself on the law regarding overheads.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to IPEC for reconsideration of apportionment and overheads deductions.

Orders

  • Remitted to IPEC to determine apportionment of profits and deductibility of overheads based on correct legal principles.