Aktiengesellschaft für Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Company Ltd (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1923 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
15 cases
-
IPCom GmbH & Company KG v Vodafone Group Plc
...may be in ignorance of the existence of the patent.” 137 In AG for Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Co Ltd (No 2) (1923) 40 RPC 107 an issue arose during an inquiry as to damages for patent infringement as to the extent to which the defendant's acts attracted a defence unde......
-
Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust v New Group Newspapers Ltd
...14 L.T. 495; (1867) L.R. 5 Eq. 81 and Aktiengesellschaft fur Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v. London Aluminium Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (1923) 40 R.P.C. 107. In Penn v. Jack the patentee was shown to have approached all users of the invention and to have successfully required the vast majority to ......
-
Ipcom Gmbh & Company KG (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of the Federal Republic of Germany) v (1) Vodafone Group Plc
...in principle an authorisation can be implied: see Aktiengelsellschaft für Aluminium Schweissung v. London Aluminium Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (1923) 40 RPC 107 at 116—117. This was a case under, s. 55(1)'s predecessor provision, s. 29 of Patents Act 1907, and actually dealt with the issue of sub-con......
-
Morris-Garner and another v One Step (Support) Ltd
...Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd (1899) 16 RPC 209; Aktiengesellschaft fur Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Co Ltd (No 2) (1923) 40 RPC 107. 117 In his classic statement in Meters Ltd v Metropolitan Gas Meters Ltd (1911) 28 RPC 157, Fletcher Moulton LJ suggested that even where ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES
...he then was). 24 As was noted by Sargant J in Aktiengesellschaft fuer Autogene Aluminium Schweissung v London Aluminium Co Ltd (No 2)(1923) 40 RPC 107 at 113–114: [T]he successful patentee [cannot] ascribe any fancy sum which he says he might have charged, but in cases where he has dealt wi......