Royalties in UK Law

The commercial background to the Agreement is that in March 2000 Dupont acquired a small Californian research and development company called Uniax Corporation, which then changed its name to Dupont Displays Inc. The business of Uniax consisted of the development of what is described as organic light-emitting display technology, which can be used to produce plastic and glass displays for a variety of purposes, including cellular telephones and portable computers.

84. In my view there are two fundamental factors that I must bear in mind in fixing the quantum meruit remuneration that Primus should receive for the service it provides in permitting calls originating from Orange to use its system. These are, first, that the remuneration must be reasonable in all the circumstances. Secondly, that the basis for calculation should be as simple as possible, so as to minimise the chances of future disputes over payments.

Thus the rate will be 50.58%, 62.15% and 46.23% of the peak, off – peak and weekend interconnect rates that are paid by BT to ITHL, without any deduction for the rebate that ITHL pays back to T-Mobile under the terms of the Virtual Interconnect Agreement between T-Mobile and ITHL. That will make the position analogous to the situation between Orange, Core, ITHL and Primus.

Fifthly, laches is an equitable doctrine, under which delay can bar a claim to equitable relief. Although I would not suggest that it is an immutable requirement, some sort of detrimental reliance is usually an essential ingredient of laches, in my opinion.

These are very useful guidelines, but the principle of them must not be misapplied. Before a "going rate" of royalty can be taken as the basis on which an infringer should be held liable, it must be shown that the circumstances in which the going rate was paid are the same or at least comparable with those in which the patentee and the infringer are assumed to strike their bargain.

They see no reason why the entire procedure for entry of the judgment, followed by its registration and the resort by the judgment creditor to the remedies provided by ROCA, culminating in an order for sale, should not be regarded for the purposes of section 254 as a process of execution. Although the judgment charge confers the same priority as an ordinary consensual equitable charge, it is a charge created in aid of the enforcement of the judgment.

The fact, which Mr Leggatt accepts, that Leofelis is domiciled in Switzerland and, let it be assumed, is only domiciled in Switzerland, which is not a Member State of the European Union is irrelevant to the operation of article 28 of the Regulation. That article and the other articles in Section 9 are concerned with proceedings which take place in the courts of different Member States.