Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 142 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWHC 822 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division (Patents Court)
Judge:

Patten J

Representation Thomas Moody-Stuart (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) for the applicant.
  James St.Ville (instructed by Maclay Murray & Spens) for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 11 April 2006

Catchwords

Disclosure - Production of documents - Production before commencement of proceedings - Claim in respect of infringement of design right and copyright - Parties trading in direct competition with each other - Whether applicant having good cause of action - Whether court should exercise its discretion in favour of making order sought - CPR 31.16, .

The Case

To allow CPR 31.16 to become a means of examining a competitor's otherwise secret designs on the basis that some kind of infringement might have taken place could not be permissible unless there was at least a clear and convincing evidential basis for the belief that acts of infringement might have taken place and the court could be satisfied that the pre-action disclosure sought was highly focused.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.