Brigade (BBS-Tek) Ltd v Back-Tec Worldwide Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Birss QC |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWPCC 52 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CC11P02853 |
| Court | Patents County Court |
| Date | 31 October 2012 |
[2012] EWPCC 52
IN THE PATENTS COUNTY COURT
Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
His Honour Judge Birss QC
Case No: CC11P02853
Bristows for the Claimant
The defendants did not appear and were not represented
On paper
Approved Judgment
This is a paper application in a patent case. The case is a claim for infringement of UK patent GB 2 318 662. The claimant contends that the defendants have infringed the patent. The defendants deny infringement and contend the patent is invalid. The trial is fixed to be heard with another case about the same patent starting on 4 th March 2013.
On 12th July 2012 Floyd J sitting in the Patents County Court made an order for directions. Paragraph 6(a) required the first defendant to serve an amended statement of case dealing with certain issues by 9th August 2012. The first defendant did not do so. On 19th September 2012 I made an order that unless the first defendant complied with paragraph 6(a) of the order of 12th July within 21 days, its defence would be struck out and judgment entered for the claimant.
The first defendant has not complied with the 19 th September order either. On 23rd October claimant applied for an order that the first defendant's defence be struck out, judgment entered for the claimant and for consequential orders. The consequential orders sought are for an injunction (paragraph 2), delivery up (paragraph 3), costs (paragraph 4), an inquiry as to damages (paragraphs 5), additional damages (paragraph 6) and dissemination of the judgment (paragraph 7). The application is supported by a witness statement of Alan Johnson of Bristows, the claimant's solicitor.
No response to the claimant's application has been received by the court within the period set by r63.25(2). The claimant is plainly entitled to relief in general terms subject to certain points of detail.
I will make an order for the injunction, delivery up and damages inquiry in the terms sought by the claimant. There is no reason not to make the orders in those terms. They are conventional orders in these circumstances.
In relation to costs (paragraph 4) the claimant is entitled to an order for costs in its favour and to a summary assessment of those costs. The claimant sought to have the summary assessment conducted as part of this application. That is a very convenient course to adopt as long as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recent Patent Cases
...v Back-Tec Worldwide Ltd and Jamie Martin MacSween [2012] EWPCC 52 Costs and Dissemination This is a case heard in the Patents County Court before Birss HHJ which related to infringement of GB patent No. 2318662. The first defendant had failed to file an amended statement of case, as requir......