English High Court finds joiner in contempt in patent suit
Judge Douglas Campbell, of the English High Court, has determined that a defendant should be committed for sentencing, after breaching a series of injunctions related to timber frames.
In June this year, Campbell granted summary judgment in relation to patent and copyright infringement by the three out of four defendants, including timber frame construction specialist Flitcraft.
As part of the relief, the judge granted a number of injunctions and ordered destruction of the patent and copyright infringing goods.
Phillip Price, the claimant and owner of Supahome by Maple (Flitcraft’s competitor), then submitted an application for committal of Thomas Flitcroft and Charmain Wilson, both of whom are directors of Flitcraft. Flitcroft was named in the initial lawsuit, while Wilson was not.
Price alleged that, despite the grant of summary judgment and injunctions, the defendants have carried on with business as usual.
In the mid-September judgment, Campbell adjourned the hearing against Wilson (based on Wilson’s health), stating that he would hear the parties on the length of adjournment. He then turned to considering each of the eight alleged breaches which Price alleged should form the grounds for the commital of Flitcroft.
The first allegation, patent infringement of UK patents 2,415,714 C and 2,436, 989 (which relate to insulated timber frame building panels), succeeded in part.
Campbell found that, by continuing to distribute an old brochure after the order was served, the defendants had breached the injunction.
“Furthermore, I am not satisfied the defendants took my order at all seriously either in relation to the matter of patent infringement—which I am now considering—or in relation to the destruction of patented products, or in relation to the removal of infringing copies,” said the judge.
He added that the defendants’ approach to all these matters was “casual and they did not seem to care whether or not they got it right or how quickly they complied with my order; indeed, even if they complied with my order at all”.
However, Campbell said he wasn’t satisfied, to a criminal standard, that the defendants had continued to manufacture or supply the old product.
The judge then concluded there had been no breach on the copyright injunction, but that Flitcroft had failed to comply with the order to destroy the patent and copyright infringing products.
The matter was adjourned for sentencing, providing Flitcroft with the opportunity to purge his contempt. “It will then be up to Mr. Flitcroft to decide whether he wishes to take that opportunity,” said Campbell.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories:
Jury tells Verisk to pay $125m for infringing EagleView patents
Fed. Circuit partially reverses PTAB in win for Campbell Soup
