The Mica Insulator Co., Ltd v. Bruce Peebles & Co., Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_700 (06 July 1905)

The Mica Insulator Co., Ltd v. Bruce Peebles & Co., Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_700 (06 July 1905)

The pursuers' averments regarding patent infringement lack sufficient specification as to the nature and manner of the alleged breaches and do not apportion damages between pre- and post-amendment periods as required by statute. The pursuers must specify the processes allegedly infringed and the manner of infringement by both the defenders and foreign suppliers. Without such specification, proof cannot be allowed on the second (patent) claim.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_700
Parties
Pursuer: The Mica Insulator Company, Limited; Defender: Bruce Peebles & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil (patent Infringement and Breach of Contract) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; pursuers allowed to amend record; cause continued.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Breach of Contract, Pleading and Specification, Damages Apportionment, Amended Patents
Intellectual Property Contract Patent Infringement Breach of Contract Pleading and Specification Damages Apportionment Amended Patents

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

Parties

The Mica Insulator Company, Limited

Pursuer

Bruce Peebles & Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (patent Infringement and Breach of Contract) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments regarding patent infringement are sufficiently specific to entitle them to proof
  2. 2 Whether damages for infringement of amended patents must be apportioned between pre- and post-amendment periods
  3. 3 Whether particulars of alleged breaches must be specified in the condescendence under Scottish procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments regarding patent infringement lack sufficient specification as to the nature and manner of the alleged breaches and do not apportion damages between pre- and post-amendment periods as required by statute. The pursuers must specify the processes allegedly infringed and the manner of infringement by both the defenders and foreign suppliers. Without such specification, proof cannot be allowed on the second (patent) claim.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; pursuers allowed to amend record; cause continued.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 27th March 1905.
  • Pursuers allowed, if so advised, to lodge a minute of amendment in supplement of that tendered at the Bar, No. 30 of process.