FH Brundle (A Private Unlimited Company) v Perry
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case dealt with actions to restrain alleged groundless threats under the Patents Act 1977. Mr. Perry sent several letters to Brundle alleging patent infringement, which Brundle refuted, claiming they were unjustified threats. The court identified key issues, including whether the letters constituted threats and if Brundle was aggrieved. The court held that the letters did constitute threats, Brundle was aggrieved, and determined that Brundle's products did not infringe Mr. Perry's patent.
This is an action brought pursuant to section 70 of the Patents Act 1977 (“ the Act ”) to restrain alleged groundless threats of proceedings for infringement of a patent.
The Defendant (“Mr Perry”) is the proprietor of UK Patent No. 2 390 104B (“the Patent”) which relates to a fence bracket.
The Claimant (“Brundle”), a private unlimited company, is a wholesaler of metal products, including fences and component items for fences. In its range are a bracket used to attach fence panels to a post called the “Nylofor 3D Bracket”, which is sold in
two forms: the “Beam” and “Universal” forms, and a fence panel known as the “Nylofor 3M Panel”. These three products are all supplied to Brundle by the First Third Party (“Betafence”).
Brundle was represented by Mr Baran. Mr Perry appeared in person. Betafence was represented by Mr Heald.
The letters
5. On 5 October 2012 Mr Perry wrote to Brundle (“the October Letter”). It was in the following terms:
“ FAO: Chief Executive/Chairman
Notice Before Proceedings
Infringement of Patent GB2390104, 4 August 2003 - October 2011 Through Sales Of Betafence’s Nylofor 3D Bracket And 3M Panel
Claim for Damages Under the Patents Act 1977 .
Sirs,
I have written to your Company in the past to see if you would have any interest in stocking any of my fencing products and your reply was that you didn’t sell any of these products or that type of fencing and your Company had no interest.
It has now been brought to my attention that your Company has been selling a product of Betafence known as Nylofor 3D bracket that is used to install Nylofor fencing, for over at least 5 years, according to your Southampton office and you in fact still sell these products.
This Nylofor product infringes my Patent and I demand that you provide an Account of Profits of direct profit on sales of:
The quantity of the Nylofor 3D bracket you have sold between August 2003 – October 2011.
The number of Nylofor 3M fence panels that have been sold during the same period that are installed using the Nylofor bracket.
The number of fence posts sold corresponding with the number of fence panels sold during the same period.
The quantity of add on products sold such as the allen key tool specifically designed to use with the Nylofor 3D bracket.
I am legally entitled to a share of these profits whilst the Patent was in force and which is currently being restored to the register, as it had lapsed temporarily due to Patent Office error in late 2011.
I inte