Lilley v DMG Events Ltd
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Lilley sued DMG for copyright infringement, claiming unauthorized use of his articles and seeking nearly £1 billion in damages. The court struck out the case, determining his claims were largely time-barred and his legal theories were not recognized. In evaluating damages, the court found Mr. Lilley’s high valuation groundless and disproportionate to government court resources. This decision underscored the doctrine that frivolous or ill-founded claims should not waste judicial resources.
Judgment
Judge Hacon :
There are two applications before the court, both by the Defendant (“DMG”). The first, by an application notice dated 9 December 2013, is to strike out those parts of the Particulars of Claim and Reply which relate to a claim against DMG for “unlawfully resisting the copyright infringement claim”, pursuant to CPR rule 3.4 (2), and otherwise to treat this hearing as a CMC, with proposed directions.
The second, by an application notice dated 18 February 2014, is to strike out the statements of case of the Claimant (“Mr Lilley”) in their entirety on the grounds that they are an abuse of the court’s process or are otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.
Mr Douglas Campbell appeared for DMG. Mr Lilley appeared in person.
Background
This action concerns, for the most part at least, a claim by Mr Lilley for copyright infringement. As will appear, it is not quite that simple but the core of Mr Lilley’s complaint is not complicated. DMG is a company which edits and publishes technical journals, including “Speciality Chemicals” and “Adhesives Technology”. Mr Lilley entered into a contract with DMG to supply a number of articles which appeared in these publications. Mr Lilley says he wrote 37 articles for DMG. DMG is not sure whether this is the right number, but I will assume that it is. DMG published the articles between 1996 and March 2004. Mr Lilley was paid about £400-£500 by DMG for each of these articles, around £14,800 in all.
After the articles had appeared in DMG’s publications, DMG authorised two companies, referred to in the pleadings as ‘Thomson Gale’ or ‘Gale Group’ (which I will call “Gale”) and ‘EBSCO’, along with others to publish Mr Lilley’s articles. At the hearing Mr Lilley indicated that DMG had also authorised a third company. That is not clear from his Particulars of Claim, but nothing turns on it.
Mr Lilley says that such authorisations were infringements of his copyrights in his articles. He has not sued either Gale or EBSCO (or the third company), but he claims about £798,000,000 in damages from DMG. Mr Campbell said that once other claims were taken into account, the total to which Mr Lilley says he is entitled in this litigation is nearly £1 billion.
The timing of the alleged acts of infringement by DMG is of significance since there is a limitation issue. The claim form was issued on 26 April 2012. On the face of it, Mr Lilley cannot complain about authorisations by DMG done befor