Our litigation experience

Our experience conducting litigation

We have a wealth of experience in litigation, with an enviable record of settling disputes early with an amicable settlement. Our intellectual property litigation team is made up of patent and trade mark attorneys and solicitors who understand both the complexities of the law and the practical intricacies of the technologies in IP litigation disputes.

Read more examples of our excellent work resolving patent and trade mark disputes below.

GEODynamics v DynaEnergetics

Our litigation team defended GEODynamics, an oil industry-leading manufacturer of directional shaped charges in an invalidity proceedings case brought by DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. The case was brought in the UK High Court with respect to granted patent EP 1,671,013, covering our client’s multi-million pound product – i.e. reactive shaped charge perforators which make use of a unique exothermic reaction upon activation, which provides improved productivity in oil & gas formations. Maintaining this patent was of vital importance to GEODynamics in the market, as they are one of only two companies selling such reactive shaped charges within the oil & gas field (the other being DynaEnergetics).

In addition to these UK proceedings, DynaEnergetics brought further invalidity proceedings with respect to the corresponding patents in both the US and Germany. In the corresponding US trial, a jury considered the patent to be invalid, and so before the start of the UK trial, DynaEnergetics believed it would also prevail in the UK. However, our team, led by Chris Hamer and Margaret Arnott, was able to construct a compelling defence, based on our ability to combine our in-depth scientific knowledge with our legal acumen, so that at the end of the trial it was apparent that our client looked likely to win.

As a result, DynaEnergetics engaged in settlement discussions with our client, so as to avoid them suffering the possibility of an injunction in Europe. This was a stunning result for GeoDynamics, meaning it was able to maintain its patent in Europe despite the earlier US setback.

Meter-Tech LLC and Vanclare SE LLC v British Gas Trading Limited

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

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. 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 involved in the agreement of a confidential settlement between Eckoh plc and Semafone following a dispute over alleged infringement and invalidity of Semafone’s UK Patent (No. GB 2,473,376). 

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 US-based hedge fund company, K2 Advisors, in bringing an action against K2 Intelligence, a US 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 US lawyers in parallel proceedings in the US 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 was tenacious in its 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.

With a view to the future, we have the rights to represent clients at the new Unified Patent Court. In addition to this, a core group of our patent attorneys and consulting team have come together to form a highly specialised UPC team.