Our litigation team successfully defended established client British Gas Trading Ltd (“British Gas”) in a £30 million patent infringement claim brought by claimants Meter-Tech and VanClare SE LLC (the “Claimants”) vis-à-vis British Gas's past, current and proposed smart meter systems. The Claimants argued that their patent was inventive, however, our team constructed a robust case and successfully revoked the patent on which the claim was based. The case was of great commercial significance to our client, who trusted that our team possessed both the technical expertise and legal knowledge required to win a case of this magnitude. Not only was this case of particular importance to our client and our firm, but it also affected millions of energy consumers using smart meters, who would have faced increased costs had the Claimants been successful.
QinetiQ v GEOdynamics
Our litigation team defended GEODynamics, an oil industry-leading manufacturer of directional shaped charges. The case was brought in the High Court by QinetiQ, a UK-based defence technology company. It concerned a breach of contract claim relating to a patent licence, which involved the issue of patent infringement. GEODynamics were exclusive licensees of a patent portfolio owned by QinetiQ. The case involved complex technical and legal elements, and our litigation team presented a strong defence, drawing on the technical expertise of our patent attorney litigators as well as our legal knowledge and experience. Ultimately, in response to the outstanding case put forward by our litigation team, the parties were able to reach an agreement outside of court. We were successful in reaching a settlement agreement which had a significant positive commercial impact on our client’s business, and this case serves as an excellent example of our leading expertise and skill in dispute resolution.
Chelsea F.C. v Benetton Holdings Limited
In April 2016, our litigation team settled a complex case between Chelsea Football Club (“Chelsea F.C.”) and Benetton Holdings Limited (no relation to the well-known clothing company). Benetton own a registered trade mark for ‘Chelsea Man’. They used their mark to try and prevent our client from registering multiple trade marks, and to attack some of our client’s current trade marks. We brought legal proceedings in the High Court on behalf of our client in 2014. The team constructed arguments based on the strength of the Chelsea brand, a global brand recognised by millions of consumers, and the importance to Chelsea F.C. of being able to protect their brand by targeting counterfeiters, which can only be done through registering trade marks. As a result of the strength of the arguments constructed by our team, as well as our mediation skills, we were able to settle the High Court case, as well as concurrent proceedings in the UKIPO and EUIPO. This result had an enormous impact upon our client’s business, as they were then able to obtain a trade mark registration for “CHELSEA” in relation to clothing, allowing them to pursue counterfeiters and protect their brand reputation.
Sony v Patel
Our team defended our client in relation to an interim injunction application made by Sony in the High Court. The case concerned accusations by Sony that our client had copied their design for PlayStation controllers. Through hard-fought negotiations, our team managed to settle the dispute and achieve a positive result for our client, including avoiding an interim injunction. This case is a further example of our team’s expertise in settlement negotiations, and demonstrates our focus on vehemently defending our clients and seeking, above all, to achieve commercial results.
Semafone v Eckoh
We were successful in securing favourable terms in a confidential settlement between Eckoh plc and Semafone of their dispute over alleged infringement and invalidity of Semafone’s UK Patent relating to call centre technology, to the mutual benefit of both parties.
Bitrez v Huntsman Advanced Materials
Our litigation team defended Bitrez, a chemical resin manufacturer, against an action brought by Huntsman Advanced Materials (“Huntsman”). The case concerned our client’s use in their trade marks of the prefix “ARA”. Huntsman, who produce household glues and resins and own trade marks including “Ara”, “Aradur”, “Araldite”, “Arathane”, and “AroCy”, attacked several of our client’s registered trade marks, including “Aradride”. The case involved cross-proceedings in both the EUIPO and UKIPO, as well as trade mark infringement proceedings in the High Court. Our team demonstrated their tenacity at the negotiating table, and they were successful in securing a favourable settlement agreement.
K2 Advisors v K2 Intelligence
We represented a U.S.- based hedge fund company, K2 Advisors, in bringing an action against K2 Intelligence, a U.S. risk analysis and hedge fund investment analysis company offering their services in Europe. In addition to the proceedings we brought in the High Court, we worked alongside U.S. lawyers in parallel proceedings in the U.S., to construct a strategy to attack K2 Intelligence’s use of their trading name globally. Ultimately, this forced K2 Intelligence to enter into settlement negotiations. This case serves as one of the many examples of our litigation team’s strategic skill to avoid protracted litigation.
Memco (Avire) v Strack
Our litigation team represented Memco, now Avire, in patent infringement proceedings in the IPEC . We were successful in reaching a settlement agreement with Strack, who had been producing a competing LED product, in which they took a licence under our client’s patent portfolio.
Harley-Davidson v Garry Stephen White
We successfully negotiated favourable settlement terms on behalf of our client, Harley-Davidson, in trade mark infringement proceedings in the High Court. Our litigation team were tenacious in their efforts to achieve a positive result for our client, and were successful in reaching a settlement two weeks before the commencement of trial, helping save our client the costs of protracted litigation.
Rousselon Freres v Horwood Homewares Limited
We strategically managed ten separate proceedings on behalf of Horwood Homewares Ltd (“Horwood”) against Rousselon Freres’, including a trade mark infringement claim in the High Court. The cases all concerned the trade mark ‘Sabatier’. Our litigation team managed to negotiate a settlement agreement between the parties, which resulted in our client continuing to use the trade mark subject to the settlement terms. This was a highly significant case, and was reported on several occasions in case law reports for legal practitioners.