header-logo header-logo

Assessing the damage

11 October 2007 / Robert Renfree
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features , Damages , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

How will the IP Enforcement Directive affect damages for IP infringement? asks Robert Renfree

Few intellectual property (IP) cases proceed to a damages assessment. Usually the court will only order a damages inquiry after liability is established at trial. A damages inquiry is a substantial exercise, requiring expert accounting evidence. IP rights holders are often more interested in stopping the infringing act by obtaining a rapid injunction than in spending time and money trying to establish what their damages entitlement is, particularly where the infringer has limited finances.

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd [2006] EWHC 1344 (Pat), [2006] All ER (D) 68 (Jun) demonstrates the principles applied when damages are assessed. Ultraframe manufacture conservatories. They developed a conservatory called Ultralite. Ultralite enabled Ultraframe’s share of the low pitch conservatory market to grow from 5% to 80%. In 2002 Eurocell launched a competing product, Pinnacle. Ultraframe issued proceedings alleging that Pinnacle had infringed Ultraframe’s patent and unregistered design rights for Ultralite. After an appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was established

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll