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 16 (09 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/16.html
Cite as: [2012] EWPCC 16
[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 make a ruling on the question of costs. The circumstances are that this is a case in which the defendants raised, I think I am right in saying, four items of prior art which they have now, as a result of what I will only call horse-trading and dealing with the issues at the case management conference, decided to drop on the basis that they have received information and an assurance that they will receive information on other matters. Mr. Malynicz submits for the claimants that I should make an order that the defendants bear the costs of those issues, having essentially withdrawn or discontinued them. Mr. Colley submits that I should not because it was not unreasonable for his clients to do what he was doing.
- It seems to me the first question is whether the criterion under CPR Part 63 r63.26(2) is satisfied. That determines whether I should make a costs order at the end of this hearing. The way the rules are arranged is that under r63.26(1) the court will generally reserve the costs to the conclusion of the trial. However that is subject to r63.26(2). If r63.26(2) is satisfied then the court will make a costs order at the conclusion of the hearing.
- It seems to me that the question of whether the defendants have behaved unreasonably will be better dealt with after trial when we know what the other prior art was and is and how the matters are all sorted out. I am not satisfied that the criterion for making a costs order at this stage is satisfied. I will therefore reserve the costs. That does not mean that I have rejected Mr. Malynicz's application. It simply means that the costs can be dealt with at trial.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRSS: