FH Brundle (A Private Unlimited Company) v Perry [2014] EWHC 475 (IPEC) (06 March 2014)

FH Brundle (A Private Unlimited Company) v Perry [2014] EWHC 475 (IPEC) (06 March 2014)

The defendant's letters constituted threats of patent infringement proceedings under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977, the claimant was a person aggrieved by those threats, and the threats were unjustified because the Beam Bracket did not fall within the claims of the patent and thus there was no infringement. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 475 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: F H Brundle; Defendant: Richard Perry; First Third Party: Betafence Limited; Second Third Party: Britannia Fasteners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Threats Action and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim and Part 20 claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Groundless Threats, Patent Infringement, Interpretation of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Law Patents Groundless Threats Patent Infringement Interpretation of Patent Claims

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F H Brundle

Claimant

Richard Perry

Defendant

Betafence Limited

First Third Party

Britannia Fasteners Limited

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Threats Action and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's letters constituted threats of patent infringement proceedings under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was a person aggrieved by the threats
  3. 3 Whether the threats were unjustified because the patent had lapsed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's letters constituted threats of patent infringement proceedings under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977, the claimant was a person aggrieved by those threats, and the threats were unjustified because the Beam Bracket did not fall within the claims of the patent and thus there was no infringement. The defendant's counterclaim and Part 20 claim failed as no infringement was established.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim and Part 20 claim dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Perry is restrained from making further threats of patent infringement proceedings against Brundle in relation to the products in question.
  • Mr Perry's counterclaim against Brundle is dismissed.