|
On 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...
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)
Bailey & Anor v Haynes & Ors [2006] EWPCC 5 (02 October 2006)
The claimants alleged infringement of UK and Community unregistered design rights (UDR) in a polyvinyl alcohol warp knitted ladder-resistant micromesh bait bag used to catch freshwater fish. It was held that the 3D structure was excluded from UK UDR protection under the ‘method or principle of construction’ exclusion. A challenge to subsistence of Community UDR based on functionality failed because the design was not the only design which was capable of achieving the function of containing fine bait in proscribed circumstances. However, there was no infringement because on the evidence the defendants had designed their own product independently. Court: Patents County Court (England and Wales)
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
FNM Corporation Ltd v Drammock International Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1294 (Pat) (15 June 2009)
A patent claiming an aerosol spray containing water and dimethyl ether was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness in light of prior art and common general knowledge. Communications from the claimant and its solicitors conveyed threats of proceedings for patent infringement but were protected by s.70(2A)(b) of the Patents Act 1977 because the claimant did not have reason to suspect that the patent was invalid at the time of the threats. Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
Phonographic Performance Ltd v British Hospitality Association & Ors, Ch Div (Arnold J), 12/2/10
An appeal against a decision of the Copyright Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal had been entitled to find that new tariffs set by PPL for public performance of sound recordings as background music in pubs, restaurants, shops and offices showed an unjustifiably substantial increase on previous tariffs.
Court: High Court (Chancery Division) (England and Wales)
Court: High Court (Patents Court) (England and Wales)
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
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)