Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 162 (Pat) (21 January 2016)

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 162 (Pat) (21 January 2016)

The court declined to grant an injunction because the breaches were historic, unlikely to recur, and the settlement agreement provided a mutually agreed procedure (clause 3.3) for addressing future breaches. The court also refused to order an account of profits or related disclosure, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify such a remedy in a contract case.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 162 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited; Defendant: H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Breach of Contract (post Settlement Agreement) / Post Liability Judgment; Application for Injunction and Account of Profits
Outcome
Application for injunction and account of profits refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Account of Profits, Settlement Agreements, Patent Related Breach of Contract
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Injunctions Account of Profits Settlement Agreements Patent Related Breach of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Limited

Claimant

H & M Hennes & Mauritz UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Breach of Contract (post Settlement Agreement) / Post Liability Judgment; Application for Injunction and Account of Profits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted for breach of a settlement agreement relating to patent rights
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to elect between an account of profits and an inquiry as to damages in a contract case

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant an injunction because the breaches were historic, unlikely to recur, and the settlement agreement provided a mutually agreed procedure (clause 3.3) for addressing future breaches. The court also refused to order an account of profits or related disclosure, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify such a remedy in a contract case.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction and account of profits refused.

Orders

  • No injunction granted against H&M.
  • No order for account of profits or Island Records disclosure.