Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 APRIL 2004

IP Indemnities - Your Exposure May Be Greater Than You Think

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
Explore more from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co

Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 confers the jurisdiction to order costs against a non-party to litigation. In this case, Philips commenced patent infringement proceedings against Aventi Ltd. Princo - a non party to, but a funder of, this litigation - was held liable for Philip’s costs.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Claire O'Brien
Claire O'Brien

Originally published September 2003

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Aventi Limited and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Princo Digital Disc GmbH and another - Ch. D (Pumfrey J) 16/9/2003

Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 confers the jurisdiction to order costs against a non-party to litigation. In this case, Philips commenced patent infringement proceedings against Aventi Ltd. Princo - a non party to, but a funder of, this litigation - was held liable for Philip’s costs.

Facts

Philips sued Aventi in the UK in respect of unlicensed compact discs made by Princo amongst others. Aventi was Princo’s main customer in the UK. Princo was already subject to proceedings in Germany in relation to the German equivalent of Philip’s UK patent. However Princo was not party to the litigation in the UK.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

The Manchester Creative Industries AI Summit – The Government's Opportunity To Set Out A Policy Direction On Copyright And AI?

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has convened the Creative Industries AI Summit in Manchester to bring together rightsholders, regulators, platforms and AI labs to align on a common approach to copyright-protected works in AI development. The Summit will unveil the 'Manchester Principles', a framework establishing minimum conditions for using human creative work to train generative AI models.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Lewis Silkin
Lewis Silkin
Article

UPC CoA Confirms Jurisdiction Over Pending European Patent Application

The UPC Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Unified Patent Court can exercise jurisdiction over European patent applications, provided they are granted before the defendant files their statement of defence. This landmark decision means patent holders may now be locked into the UPC system even before their patents are officially granted, fundamentally changing the strategic timing considerations for opting out of UPC jurisdiction.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law