The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Tuesday, 5 August 2003


Back in 1993 London patent agents Forrester Ketley sued inventor David Brent for unpaid fees arising from the preparation of his Indestep injection moulding machine. Ten years later, the proceedings still in their relative infancy, the patent agents sought further and better particulars of Brent’s defence and counterclaim while Brent made a host of demands which included a request for full reasons for all earlier court orders relating to the dispute and a ruling on the fairness of the proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Justice Jacob told Brent his defence and counterclaims would be struck out unless he provided particulars of them within a reasonable time. He also dismissed all Brent’s counterclaims as being without substance or misconceived. Said the judge: “Although Mr Brent is a litigant in person and I make full allowance for that, I have to say that I cannot find all his submissions to be entirely rational. His submissions are diffuse, confused and overlaid with an enormous sense of injustice which extends to anybody connected with this case including almost every previous Judge or Master and everyone connected with the opposite side”.

The full transcript of this decision can be found on the subscription-only Lawtel service.
Guidance here where a litigant appears in person in the UK.
Intellectual Property Creators’ suggestions for the Inventors’ Bill of Rights here
Visit the Institute of Patentees and Inventors here
For information concerning a rather different David Brent look here and here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':