Brain v Ingledew Brown Bennison & Garrett

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1995
Year1995
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5 cases
  • Global Flood Defence Systems Ltd and Another v Johann Van Den Noort Beheer Bv and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
    • February 1, 2016
    ...the grant of the patent. Section 70(1) refers only to threats of proceedings for infringement of a 'patent'. [20] In Patrick John Brain v Ingledew Brown Bennison & Garrett [1996] FSR 341 the Court of Appeal rejected such an over-literal construction of s.70(1). In that case the threat made ......
  • Global Flood Defence Systems Ltd and Another v Van Den Noort Innovations BV and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
    • January 29, 2015
    ...it was argued that such a threat was not within the ambit of s.70(1) and therefore not actionable. This was rejected by Jacob J ( [1995] FSR 552). The argument was not pursued on appeal. Even so, it was again rejected in terms. Aldous LJ said this (at p.347–8): "I agree with the judge and ......
  • Global Flood Defence Systems Ltd and another v Johan Van Den Noort Beheer B.v and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division (Patents Court)
    • July 26, 2016
    ...section 65(2) of the Patents Act 1949 from section 70(2) of the 1977 Act. 21 Jacob J rejected this argument for the following reasons ( [1995] FSR 552 at 556): "I think the argument is flawed. Section 70 continues to refer to a threatener who has no patent rights at all—'whether or not the ......
  • Cavity Trays Ltd v Rmc Panel Products Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • February 6, 1996
    ...Bowden Controls and therefore it is of no real help in resolving the issues before the court. 59 Finally I come to Brain v Ingeldew Brown (1995) FSR 552. In that case, Jacob J held that a threat to a user of a process which was not confined to a threat that proceedings would be brought in r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT