Vernacare Ltd v Environmental Pulp Products Ltd [2012] EWPCC 49 (30 October 2012)

Vernacare Ltd v Environmental Pulp Products Ltd [2012] EWPCC 49 (30 October 2012)

The claimant was the winner of the legal proceedings as its patent was upheld and two product versions were found to infringe. However, deductions from costs were justified to reflect the defendant's success on version 3, a partial success on obviousness, and the claimant's insufficient engagement with settlement offers. The final award was 65% of the claimant's assessed costs, subject to reductions in the scale for simplicity of the case.

Citation
[2012] EWPCC 49
Parties
Claimant: Vernacare Limited; Defendant: Environmental Pulp Products Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Action / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant awarded 65% of its summarily assessed costs, subject to reductions for simplicity of the case.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Costs Assessment, Issue Based Costs Orders
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Infringement Costs Assessment Issue Based Costs Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vernacare Limited

Claimant

Environmental Pulp Products Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Action / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purpose of costs?
  2. 2 What proportion of costs should be awarded given partial success?
  3. 3 How should the Patents County Court costs scales be applied in a simple patent case?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was the winner of the legal proceedings as its patent was upheld and two product versions were found to infringe. However, deductions from costs were justified to reflect the defendant's success on version 3, a partial success on obviousness, and the claimant's insufficient engagement with settlement offers. The final award was 65% of the claimant's assessed costs, subject to reductions in the scale for simplicity of the case.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded 65% of its summarily assessed costs, subject to reductions for simplicity of the case.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded £32,475 in costs.