0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

patent infringement threats!

1 August 2013

If you’re unjustifiably threatened with patent infringement and cease activities as a result, you can in certain circumstances bring an action and recover damages.

That’s precisely what happened here.

Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GbmH, a well known manufacturer of organic pigments wrote to Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd (another such manufacturer) about one of Sudarshan’s products, saying:

Certainly you will not be interested in continuously effecting a patent infringement, which may involve the most serious penalties to the infringer and his customers

The Court of Appeal, having found the relevant patent to be invalid, considered the letter to be a groundless threat to Sudarshan’s customers (even though it was only sent to Sudarshan).

It also found that Clariant could not rely on a defence that when it made the threat it did not know that the patent was invalid, by imputing onto Clariant knowledge of its patent attorney and inventor.

A reminder of the risks associated with alleging patent infringement.

related opinions

High Court finds against WASPI women

The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

View blog

Compulsory drone registration goes live on 1 October 2019

As part of the continued tightening of the restrictions on drone use within UK airspace, the latest amendments to the Air Navigation Order 2016 come into force on 30 November 2019.

View blog

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up