No Excuse; Burden Of Proof Too Declarations Of Non-Infringement

Slow payment's no excuse

Judgment was given on Mon inward Pearce together with some other v Elecheck Ltd together with another, a Chancery Division determination of Judge Weeks QC (sitting every bit a approximate of the High Court) that was picked upwards yesteryear Butterworths' All England Direct subscription service.

Pearce was managing managing director of PTS Ltd, a fellowship that tested portable electrical appliances every bit a subcontractor for Elecheck. When Elecheck took a long fourth dimension to pay PTS's invoices, Pearce threatened to contact other subcontractors of Elecheck who were having the same problem, every bit good every bit Elecheck's customers - both of which mightiness bear witness embarrassing for Elecheck. Elecheck afterwards terminated its contract amongst PTS together with asked PTS to provide of all fabric together with information which it held inward connection amongst Elecheck's line of piece of work organisation together with clients. Some fourth dimension afterwards, due west (one of Elecheck's surface area sales managers) decided to acquire out his occupation together with bring together PTS.

Unbelievably, this instance was thrown upwards yesteryear a Google
Image search nether the price 'electric', 'shock' together with 'cat'

When P together with PTS sued Elecheck for non-payment of invoices. Elecheck brought a Part xx claim, alleging that due west had given Pearce together with PTS documents together with database information most its line of piece of work organisation together with clients together with that W, Pearce together with PTS had all breached confidentiality together with infringed copyright inward the databases. due west brought his ain Part xx claim against Elecheck for non-payment of committee for his final calendar month of employment. Following judgment on those issues, the courtroom heard farther declaration on Elecheck's submission that a distinction should move drawn betwixt Pearce together with PTS together with that Pearce should move held personally liable for the acts complained of.

Judge Weeks ordered Elecheck to pay PTS's outstanding invoices together with W's commission. On the facts, due west together with PTS had indeed breached confidentiality together with infringed Elecheck's copyright inward the databases. Judgment would hence move entered against Pearce together with PTS for damages, just Pearce's personal liability should move express to breach of confidence inward honour solely of those documents that passed through his hands together with should non extend to copyright infringement inward the databases.

Without the create goodness of the transcript of the judgment inward a dispute that seems to plow then much on the facts, the IPKat is cautious non to brand whatever uninformed comment. Nonetheless this instance is a useful reminder that ii wrongs don't brand a right. The fact that someone owes you lot coin doesn't title you lot to infringe his database correct or breach his entitlement to confidentiality - nonetheless unfair that may appear inside the context of running a line of piece of work organisation that can't pay its bills until it kickoff gets paid yesteryear others.


Tell me why you lot recollect I'm infringing!

Subscription service Lawtel came upwards amongst this picayune instance today: Baxter Healthcare Corporation together with some other v Abbott Laboratories, a Patents Court determination of Mr Justice Mann.

Baxter applied for a announcement of non-infringement nether the Patents Act 1977 s.71 inward honour of Abbott's patent. Abbott conceded that Baxter's sale of a item production inward the Great Britain would non infringe claims 1 together with five of its patent, though it made no concession every bit to the other claims. Baxter hence sought farther information every bit to what was the instance that Abbott intended to combat on infringement of those other claims. Abbott argued that Baxter had to deport the burden of proof that it was non infringing the claims together with that Baxter's application would move forcing Abbott to give particulars of structure that, on the authorities, it should non bring to do.

Mann J ordered Abbott to particularise its instance further. Abbott was clearly aware of the instance it intended to run and, notwithstanding the burden of proof, it was highly unsatisfactory to human face until central of witness statements for the nature of that instance to decease apparent. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, parties are required to plead positive cases together with patent litigation was no exception: the fact that at that topographic point was no burden of proof on Abbott did non obviate the demand for it to plead its case.

You alive together with learn, says the IPKat, who had no thought that an applicant for a announcement of non-infringement could forcefulness the patent possessor to bring out his mitt then effectively together with enable the applicant to discovery just what he demand create inward lodge to canvass circular a competitor's patent without crashing into it. Merpel adds, earlier applying for a announcement of non-infringement, don't forget to acquire a favourable non-binding opinion from the Patent Office. It all helps trim back the take away a opportunity of failure ...