Vestergaard Frandsen A/S (now Called MVF 3Aps) v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE ROSE DBE
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In April 2009, it was determined that the Defendants had misused confidential information related to mosquito net manufacturing. The subsequent hearing aimed to determine appropriate compensation for the Claimants. The Court calculated damages based on lost profits and royalties, awarding a sum for consultancy related to the misuse. The Defendants were liable for damages totaling US$485,419 for the sales of first and later formula nets, though no damages for accelerated market entry were granted.
Judgment
Redacted Judgment
para I. BACKGROUND 1 (a) The mosquito nets 2 (b) The bioassaying and testing of nets 6 (c) Approval of LLINs by WHO 9 (d) The market for sales of LLINs 12 (e) The parties 13 (f) The development of Netprotect 18 (g) The findings of misuse of confidential information in the Liability Judgment 29 (h) Proceedings between the parties 33 (i) the English proceedings 34 (ii) Other proceedings 43 (j) The witnesses at trial 45 II. COMPENSATION FOR FIRST FORMULA NETS 53 (a) How many First Formula nets were sold by the Defendants? 54 (b) What is the measure of damages in respect of First Formula nets? 61 (c) How many of the 248,152 First Formula nets would have been sold by VF in the absence of Bestnet? 64 (d) In respect of those lost sales of First Formula nets, what is the lost profit for which VF is entitled to be compensated? 73 (e) The royalty for the remaining sales of nets 79 (f) Conclusion on damages for sales of First Formula nets 100 III. COMPENSATION FOR NETS MADE USING THE LATER FORMULA (a) The correct measure of damages 101 (b) The quasi-consultancy fee for use of the confidential information in arriving at the WHOPES approved, Later Formula Netprotect net (i) How did the Defendants arrive at the Later Formula? 114 (ii) The application for WHOPES interim approval for the Later Formula nets 136 (iii) Conclusion on quasi-consultancy fee 150 (c) Damages for accelerated entry 154 (i) How much time was saved by the Defendants’ use of VF’s confidential information? 155 (ii) Did that time saving result in additional sales of Later Formula nets? 166 IV. OVERALL CONCLUSION 177
Mrs Justice Rose DBE:
I. BACKGROUND
In April 2009 Arnold J (‘the Judge’) handed down judgment in which he held that the Defendants had misused the Claimants’ confidential information: [2009] EWHC 657 (Ch) (‘the Liability Judgment’). That followed a 16 day trial earlier in 2009 (‘the Liability Trial’). He subsequently ordered that there be an inquiry as to the compensation to which the Claimants are entitled as a result of that misuse. This judgment follows the hearing of that inquiry as to damages (‘the Inquiry Hearing’). The parties are very far apart on the quantum of the damages to which Claimants are entitled. The Claimants say their claim is worth many millions of pounds and the Defendants say it is worth only a few thousand pounds. There have been a number of judgments handed down in these proceedings both by Arnold J and by the Court of Appeal. The fu