Posts

Showing posts with the label price

Costs - Price v Flitcraft

Image
Author Pierre Adolphe Valett e   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick KC)  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2023] EWHC 695 (Pat) (3 April 2023) I discussed Nicholas Caddick KC's judgment in  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and other s [2022] EWHC 3381 (Pat) (20 Dec 2022) in Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Lt d on 16 Jan 2022 and  A Patent Trial in Manchester at Last - Price v Flitcraft Lt d   in IP Northwest on 17 Jan 2023,  This was an action for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.  The first claimant, Philip Price, did not win on anything but the second claimant, Supawall Ltd, did have some success with the patent claim though not with passing off.  As it was not obvious which party was the overall winner a further hearing took place on  16 March 2023 to decide which of those parties should pay which costs.  The judgment was handed down on 3 April 2023 ( Price and others v F...

Patents, Copyright and Passing off - Price v Flitcraft Ltd.

Image
Author Skip88   Licence Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick KC)  Price and others v Flitcraft Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 3381 (Pat) (20 Dec 2022) This was an action for patent and copyright infringement and passing off.  The patents in suit were GB2415714C  and GB2436989B.  The first claimant, Philip Price ("Mr Price"), claimed to own the patents. He contended that he had assigned the patents to one Fred Bridge ("Mr Bridge") shortly before he was adjudged bankrupt and that Mr Bridge had reassigned them back to him upon his discharge from bankruptcy.   The second claimant, Supawall Ltd. ("Supawall") claimed to be Mr Price's exclusive licensee.  Mr Price and Supawall alleged that the first and second defendants, Flitcraft Ltd ("Flitcraft") and Flitcraft Timber Frame Ltd., had infringed the patents by marketing and supplying a product known as "Injectawall". The third and fourth ...

Practice - Vimage Products Ltd v Data Candy Ltd

Image
© 2021 Jane Lambert: All rights reserved Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr John Kimbell QC)   Vimage Products Ltd. v Data Candy Ltd and others   [2022] EWHC 606 (IOEC) (18 March 2022_ Sometimes, through no fault of its own, a claimant joins someone who was not responsible for the alleged wrongdoing as a defendant.    That is what appears to have happened in  Vimage Products Ltd v Data Candy Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 606 (IPEC) when Vimage Products Ltd. sued Data Candy Ltd and its director, Joanne Roper, as defendants to an action for design right infringement and passing off.  Vimage joined them as defendants because they appeared to be the owners of a website that advertised allegedly infringing articles. In their defence, the defendants denied infringement and identified Lenken Ltd. as the owner of the website.  Vimage and Lenken tried unsuccessfully to resolve their dispute without recourse to litigation.  Vimage applied ...

What Price for IPO plc's Shares at its IPO?

Image
The Royal Mail's Privatization was too cautious according to the National Audit Office. Will Vince Cable ask too much for the shares of IPO Plc? Ever since the announcement by Viscount Younger of Leckie  that the Intellectual Property Office  is to be privatized, there has been intense speculation in the City as to what the price that the shares will be offered to the public upon the agency's privatization. Originally it was rumoured that the price would be 255p but following the National Audit Office's criticism of the Royal Mail Privatization  analysts now believe that it could be set very much higher. A figure of 375p has been suggested by some analysts, especially after the IPO's staff received tempting offers from the Bogof hedge fund. According to the South Wales Argus  and the Western Mail there has been a rush of enquiries for top of the range models at Sytner the luxury car distributor for Newport.  Jewellers and pubs in the ...