British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Patents County Court
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Patents County Court >> Universal Engraving Inc & Anor v Falcontec Ltd & Ors [2012] EWPCC 15 (09 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/15.html
Cite as: [2012] EWPCC 15
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
B e f o r e :
____________________
| (1) UNIVERSAL ENGRAVING INC (2) UEI FINE CUT LIMITED |
Claimants |
|
| - and - |
||
| (1) FALCONTEC LIMITED (2) STANLEY VIGURS (3) DAWN ORIANA KAREN VIGURS |
Defendants |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court
Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Tele No: 020 7067 2900, Fax No: 020 7831 6864, DX: 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Website: www.martenwalshcherer.com
MR. PETER COLLEY (instructed by Moore Legal, Solicitors) for the Defendants
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- I need to decide what to do about disclosure on the question of the personal liability of the second and third defendants in these proceedings. It seems to me the correct approach is to apply the costs benefit test.
- This is a distinct issue. It is separate and distinct from the question of the validity and infringement of this patent. It is clearly a matter of importance to the claimants that the second and third defendants are bound by the outcome in relation to the validity and infringement of this patent. I shall make it clear that no order I make about disclosure will alter the fact that all three defendants are parties to the case. The trial will be binding on all three defendants, that is to say the findings of validity and infringement will be binding on Falcontec Limited, Stanley Vigurs and Dawn Vigurs, the third defendant.
- However, it seems to me that bearing in mind the purpose and function of the Patents County Court and the costs benefit test, it is proportionate to hive off the question of whether they are personally liable for infringements carried out by the first defendant to be dealt with on the inquiry as to damages (or account of profits). That has two advantages, it means that the costs and complexity of dealing with disclosure at this stage is put off and it also means that the matter may never arise. If the patent turns out to be invalid and/or not infringed in an appropriate sense, significant costs will be saved.
- Accordingly, I will not grant disclosure on that issue in this case but, as I say, I will emphasise yet again, that the second and third defendants are parties to the proceedings and will be bound by the outcome at trial on validity and infringement. That means that the issue of their personal liability will not involve investigating whether these products infringe a valid patent or not.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRSS: