INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| F H BRUNDLE
|- and -
- and -
(1) BETAFENCE LIMITED
(2) BRITANNIA FASTENERS LIMITED
The Defendant appearing in person
Jeremy Heald (instructed by Wake Smith LLP) for the First Third Party
Hearing dates: 27th March 2014
Crown Copyright ©
Judge Hacon :
Transitional provisions for scale costs in the IPEC
"Transitional and saving provisions
25) In respect of the amendments made to Practice Direction 45 – Fixed Costs by paragraph 24)(d)—
(a) those amendments shall only apply to proceedings started in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on or after 1st October 2013, and
(b) Table A and Table B in Practice Direction 45, as they applied on 30th September 2013, shall continue to have effect in respect of any proceedings started in a patents county court which are continued in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court."
Departure from the costs cap and scale costs
"Royal Courts of Justice
Patents County Court
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
Mr Richard Perry
19 Yerbury Street
BA14 8DP 26th March 2014
Dear Mr Perry,
I have re-considered the case CC13P00980 and upon reflection; your opponents (FH Brundle, Betafence and Britannia Fasteners) having used your name on purchase orders for the infringing goods protected under your patent (which seems to be a fundamental point in the case), have colluded to defraud you of substantial sums of profits you were rightfully entitled to and therefore I have reversed my decision in your favour and award £5,000,000.00 in damages that would settle the claim in full.
I apologise that I did not even question your opponents on this issue or the matters concerning the manipulation of design sheets and copyright dates as at the time I didn't think it was all that relevant.
I order the claimants and counter defendants to pay the claim in full within 14 days and the claim for unjustified threats is dismissed.
Mr Justice Hacon."
Dissemination of the judgment
" … I am far from saying that publicity orders of this sort should be the norm. On the contrary I rather think the court should be satisfied that such an order is desirable before an order is made – otherwise disputes about publicity orders are apt to take on a life of their own as ancillary satellite disputes. They should normally only be made, in the case of a successful intellectual property owner where they serve one of the two purposes set out in art. 27 of the Enforcement Directive and in the case of a successful non-infringer where there is a real need to dispel commercial uncertainty in the marketplace (either with the non-infringer's customers or the public in general)."
The reference to 'art. 27' of the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights) is a typo; it should read 'recital 27' which states:
" To act as a supplementary deterrent to future infringers and to contribute to the awareness of the public at large, it is useful to publicise decisions in intellectual property infringement cases."
"On [date] the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court within the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that FH Brundle's sale of the Nylofor 3M Fence Panel, and the Nylofor 3D Fence Brackets, did not infringe UK Patent Number 2 390 104 owned by Mr Richard Perry. Accordingly, the Court ruled that threats made by Mr Perry of patent infringement proceedings against FH Brundle were unjustifiable.
A copy of the full judgment of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court is available at the following link: