DANGEROUS LETTERS OF INTENT
Oct 2010: Müller supplies dairy products and RTS supplies and installs machinery for packaging food products. Müller selected RTS to supply it with a system to package yoghurt pots and start was agreed under a letter of intent that set out the full contract sum and it also stated that the final contract would be based on Müller’s amended form of MF1 and for a limited four-week “initial” period. Negotiations dragged and the initial period came and went and the letter of intent was not issued. RTS worked and Müller paid until a dispute aose. RTS refused to finish installing the equipment. Mr Justice Clarke of Technology and Construction Court found that the letter of intent had expired at the end of the initial period and did not govern the relationship between the parties thereafter. It also decided that as the parties continued to carry out works after the letter of intent had expired, they intended to create legal relations and enter into a contract but was not the MF1 terms but one that excluded some of the MF/1 terms (limited contract). RTS now argued that no contract was concluded after the letter of intent expired and as there was no formal contract RTS was entitled to bring a quantum meruit claim. The Court of Appeal decided that there was no contract between the parties because the MF1 terms included a “subject to contract” clause and therefore that no contract was formed. The Supreme Court confirmed that the letter of intent had expired at the end of the initial period; and conduct thereafter suggested that parties intended to enter into a contract and amounted to a waiver of the “subject to contract” clause and that therefore the full MF1 had been entered into.
Comment: Three separate court proceedings! Three different decisions! Make sure letters of intent are for (i) a limited scope of works and (ii) a limited period of time and (iii) for a limited maximum sum and (iv) must specify what will happen when the letter expires and the default position if the expected position does not occur.
RTS Flexible Systems Limited v Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production) (2010). (The Müller case)
Europe-wide Contract Law ProposedOn 1 July 2010 the European Commission published a Green Paper setting out policy options for introducing a European contract law for consumers and businesses.
more...
Red Spider Technology v Omega Completions Technology, Ch Div (Mann J), 21/1/10
Red Spider Technology v Omega Completions Technology, Ch Div (Mann J), 21/1/10
Claims for infringement of a patent concerning a water-based injection valve for use in oilfield exploration, and for infringement of design right in the valve, both failed. Further, the patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness.
Properly construed, the patent did not claim the feature relied on. Further, the priority document relied on did not disclose all the integers of Claim 1, and so the sale of the valve by the patentee before the patent application date anticipated the patent. Further, the invention was obvious over the common general knowledge and a piece of prior art.
The defendant’s reproduction of the valve by working from the patent drawings was not copying of the valve design for design right purposes because the ideas taken were at a high level of abstraction.
Court: No court set yet
Blinx UK Ltd v Blinkbox Entertainment Ltd, Ch Div (Floyd J), 5/2/10
Blinx UK Ltd v Blinkbox Entertainment Ltd, Ch Div (Floyd J), 5/2/10
Location: Case TypesIntellectual PropertyTrade Marks
Posted by: Law Brief Publishing 24/02/2010 23:24
An application for an interim injunction, restraining use of a name alleged to amount to passing off and trade mark infringement, was refused where the claimant had delayed more than a year in bringing the application. The claimant’s website BLINKX.COM provided access to film, television and video content, and the defendant had launched BLINKBOX.COM offering a service for viewing, customising and sharing television and video clips. It had been unreasonable and unjustified for the claimant to wait until confusion arose in the market before commencing proceedings
Court: No court set yet
Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation & Ors v MG Sports & Racing Europe Ltd
Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation & Ors v MG Sports & Racing Europe Ltd & Anr, Ch Div (Sir William Blackburne), 19/2/10
An action for trade mark infringement and passing off, brought by the Chinese transferees of the business and assets of the British car manufacturer MG (in administration in 2005), was successful. The defendant English company had purported to buy the “MG X POWER” trade mark from the liquidator in 2007 along with the sports car arm of the business, but on a proper construction of the 2005 agreement with the Chinese purchaser, all the trade marks including the MG X POWER mark were transferred to the Chinese in 2005. The purported agreement to sell the mark in 2007 was therefore of no effect.
Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
BSW Ltd v Balltec Ltd [2006] EWHC 822 (Ch) (11 April 2006)
BSW Ltd v Balltec Ltd [2006] EWHC 822 (Ch) (11 April 2006)
An application for pre-action disclosure of design drawings belonging to a potential defendant to a design right and copyright claim was rejected. The applicant alleged that it was impossible for the respondent to have designed, produced and tested a range of products in a short period of time without copying the applicant’s designs. However, the applicant was unable to particularise its claim without pre-action disclosure of the respondent’s designs. The claim was speculative and based on uncorroborated statements of impression and theory not supported by expert evidence, and disclosure might damage the respondent, whose designs were secret and alleged to be valuable.
Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1588
Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1588 (Pat) (07 July 2009)
A patent concerning a home computer gaming system was revoked on grounds of (1) lack of novelty in light of the prior art; (2) obviousness over the common general knowledge and prior art; and (3) consisting wholly of excluded matter under s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977, the subject matter being a computer program not claiming a technical effect.
Court: High Court (Patents Court) (England and Wales)
New Data Protection Fines
New £500,000 Data Protection Fines come into play.
From 6th April 2010, the Information Commissioner (ICO) will be able to order organisations to pay up to £500,000 as a penalty for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act. The ICO has produced statutory guidance about how it proposes to use this new power, which has been approved by the Secretary of State for Justice, and was laid before Parliament in January.
Quads 4 Kids v Campbell, Ch Div (Pumfrey J), 13/10/06
Quads 4 Kids v Campbell, Ch Div (Pumfrey J), 13/10/06
An injunction was granted, based on an action for statutory threats of proceedings for infringement of a sequence of Community registered designs for a child’s dirt bike. Quads 4 Kids had been offering children’s quad bikes for sale on eBay. Campbell alleged the bikes infringed his design rights, and he availed himself of eBay’s VeRO system to prevent Q from selling them. This involved merely completing an online form recording the registration number of the designs. Publication of the registered designs had been deferred and C did not disclose the design file. Q argued that the registered designs were likely not to be valid. It was seriously triable that the use of the VeRO system amounted to an actionable threat, taking a wider view than previously as a result of the clear potential for abuse of registered rights which this system was open to. Substantial damage was being caused, which C was unlikely to be able to compensate.
Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
