HOW TO GET PAID: CHOOSE YOUR CLIENTS WELL

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




HOW TO GET PAID: CHOOSE YOUR CLIENTS WELL <strong>HOW TO GET PAID: CHOOSE YOUR CLIENTS WELL</strong> Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.