7 Rolls Buildings
London EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a judge of the Patents County Court)
| SCOPEMA SARL
|- and -
|SCOT SEAT DIRECT LIMITED
DUNCAN CURLEY of Innovate Legal for the Defendant
Hearing date: 16th July 2013
Crown Copyright ©
Mr. Recorder Alastair Wilson QC:
a. The first related to the "notch", and divided itself into a number of subpoints, on one of which (relating to the shape of the notch) the Claimants succeeded, though the Defendants succeeded overall in relation to two different way of putting the point.
b. The second related to the direction in which the seat back would lower itself to the horizontal position. The Defendants lost on this point.
c. The third related to the question of whether the Defendants' device allowed the seat back to be raised to the vertical without interruption (the "geometry" point). On this point, the Defendants won in relation to their devices if they were not greased, but the Claimants won in relation to them if they were. The issue of whether any of the Defendants' goods were supplied greased would have been left to the enquiry as to damages, were it not for the Defendants' success on point a. above.
Defence and Counterclaim
The Applications of 11 June 2013
Providing or inspecting disclosure or product/process description
Preparing Witness Statements
a. The first is that of Mr. Karadbjahne, which was prepared for use in the course of an application shortly before the trial for further directions. In principle, the costs of a witness statement prepared for use in the course of an application form part of the costs of the application, which may sometimes mean that they are caught by the costs cap applicable to that application. The Defendants contended that this witness statement could nevertheless be considered under the heading appropriate to the preparation of witness statements for use at the trial, because it was in fact referred to at the trial. I reject this contention. The fact that a witness statement used in the course of an application comes to be referred to again at the trial does not detract from the fact that it was prepared for the purpose of the summons, particularly where references to it were mainly for the purpose of explaining matters of procedural history,
b. A witness statement of a Mr. Crawford was prepared shortly prior to the trial (and after the hearing of the application referred to above) dealing with the issue of whether the Defendants would have been responsible for applying grease to the allegedly infringing device. This was not used at the trial, and in view of my Order at the end of the hearing of the application that the questions about responsibility for greasing were to be deferred to the enquiry as to damages (if any) I consider that this witness statement was not relevant to the trial. There was no need to prepare it until it became clear that there was to be an enquiry as to damages, which, as it happens, there will not be.
c. A proof was taken from a Mr. Littlejohn to explain the provenance of the other seat I inspected at the trial, taken out of an old Transit van. Although it was not actually necessary to use his evidence at the trial, it could well have been necessary to call Mr. Littlejohn, and I consider it in principle appropriate to allow the costs of taking a proof from him.
Preparing for and attending trial and judgment
|§ above||Sum without uplift||Sum with uplift||Sum with uplift after cap|
|6||£ 6125||£ 12500||£ 6125|
|7||£ 2500||£ 5000||£ 2500|
|9||£ 2500||£ 5000||£ 2500|
|10||£ 500||£ 1000||£ 1000|
|11||£ 4052||£ 8104||£ 5000|
|13||£ 818||£ 1636||£ 1636|
|14||£ 10,000||£ 20,000||£ 15000|