• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

FREE 20 MINUTES CONSULTATION for Technology and Media Companies – Find out more

Call us today  0131 222 2939

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

BTO Becreative

BTO's Music & Creative Industries Team

  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search
  • HOME
  • EXPERTISE
  • TEAM
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • Search

Mobile Menu

Call Us Now

Find out how our law firm can help you.

0131 222 2939

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
oil and gas

Fair Notice, Commercial Actions and not taking IP for granted

October 23, 2018 //  by BTO Becreative Team//  Leave a Comment

A recent Court of Session case about intellectual property highlights that even Pre-action Protocol correspondence cannot cure a failure to plead fair notice or a legally relevant case. BTO Associate Lynn Richmond discusses.

The recent Court of Session decision in Westerton (UK) Limited v Edge Energy Limited has served as a reminder to practitioners of the standard of pleadings required in the Commercial Court and the need to avoid any ambiguity in contracts that regulate the use of Intellectual Property (“IP”).

Taking shortly, the parties entered into a contract to develop certain tools for the oil and gas industry. The contract sought to regulate the ownership and use of the parties’ IP rights. The Pursuer claimed that the Defender had misused its IP. Their claim was stated on the basis of asserted breaches of the contract and not any wider claim for infringement of its IP (or any other property rights) under the general law. The Defender took issue with the relevancy and specification of the Pursuer’s pleadings.

It was said against the Defender that its criticisms of the Pursuer’s pleadings were outdated “pleading points” that should not be entertained in the Commercial Court. Indeed, it is well known that the approach in actions on the Commercial Roll is that pleadings are to be in “abbreviated form” and the circumstances of the action “summarised”. The basis for this approach is that disputes being heard in the commercial court ought to be fully formed before they arrive at court, having been fully discussed in pre-litigation communication. Before action is raised, parties should be well aware of each other’s’ case. Overriding these considerations, however, is a requirement of fair notice. Departing from the traditional rules of pleading often raises anxiety in pleaders. Just how much specification is required for “fair notice”?

The court found, as a matter of contractual interpretation, that the specified clause in the contract between the parties could not found the breach of contract alleged by the Pursuer in respect of the Intellectual Property. The contractual claim was therefore irrelevant. It was argued for the Pursuer that the drawing of a distinction between contractual rights and property rights under the general law was an artificial one. Reliance was placed on its fourth plea in law, which was stated widely and proceeded on the basis that the Defender was simply “obliged” not to use the IP in question. The plea was not restricted simply to contractual obligations. An inference was drawn that the Pursuer’s position was that the plea was sufficiently wide to catch a breach of a property right and thus a non-contractual claim was relevantly pled.

This approach was given short shrift by the court. The Commercial Court is no different to any other and a defender is entitled to fair notice of a relevant claim. The averments of fact were to be looked at when considering relevance, not the pleas in the law. If the claim advanced by the Pursuer was one of a breach of property rights under the general law, the Defender was entitled to fair notice of that claim and of the property right said to have been breached. The nature of the rights said to be infringed would have a direct impact upon any defence open to the Defender. Whilst the Pursuer may have given sufficient notice of the acts which it considered to be a misuse of its IP, without properly specifying a relevant breach of its rights it had not given fair notice of its claim. Such lack of fair notice went beyond a mere pleading point but, rather, to the heart of the Pursuer’s claim.

As a final point, Lord Bannatyne notes that in the event he was against the Pursuer he had been invited by it to put the case out by order to address the issue of relevancy. This would presumably have been done by way of seeking leave to amend. His Lordship declined to do so and, instead, dismissed the action in its entirety. It is noted that the Pursuer was well aware of the argument it was facing and had numerous opportunities to seek leave to amend to attempt to cure the deficiencies in its pleadings. It chose not to do so and, rather, debated the arguments. There is an inference that there might just have been some sympathy shown to a motion for leave to amend if it had been made even during the debate and, indeed, his Lordship indicates that he would have allowed amendment if the only issue of relevancy and specification had been one not so pivotal to the Pursuer’s case. However, the opportunities to seek leave to amend in respect of the central issue having been missed, the decision shows that the court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion to afford a party a further life line if the deficiencies in its pleadings go to the heart of its case.

Not only is the decision a timely reminder to litigators that relevant and specific pleadings are still necessary even in commercial actions, it also underlines the need for clarity and tight drafting in intellectual property clauses and contracts.

IP rights are one of the most common property rights which are owned by one party and licensed for use by another party. Contracts granting positive rights to third parties for the use of IPR should clearly set out the parameters of the rights granted. However the Westerton case highlights the importance of equally specific drafting when an owner of IP rights seeks to reserve rights and prevent third parties from using these rights without proper authorisation.

Lord Bannatyne was critical of the Pursuer’s conflation of the right of ownership and the right of use and those drafting contract should be aware of the perils of the “it goes without saying” approach.

The decision of the court also serves to highlight the distinction between contractual and proprietary rights. The contract in question clearly sets out the parties’ proprietary rights. It was, however, silent on regulation of use of the property in question. The Pursuer was therefore unable to establish a breach of contract for want of a contractual clause regulating use.

Interestingly, the Pursuer did not seek to argue that a clause restricting use should be implied into the contract (although it appears unlikely that this argument would have gained much traction). It seems unlikely that the Pursuer would have been able to meet the necessary test to imply the necessary terms into the contract given the very clear differences that are usually drawn in respect of the ownership and use of IPR.

The Westerton decision is therefore not as surprising as it first may seem and is a stark reminder to both litigators and non-contentious lawyers to ensure that contracts regulating IP rights are clear and unambiguous.

Contact:

Lynn Richmond, Partner lyr@bto.co.uk T: 0131 222 2939

Category: Intellectual PropertyTag: Intellectual Property, IP, IP Contracts, IP rights

You May Also Be Interested In:

“More Valuable than Gold or Oil” – Commercialising your Copyright

Buyer Beware – Copyright and NFTs

Keeping Secrets – The Benefits of Good Confidentiality Agreements

Hook, line and sinker – How Ed Sheeran won in court.

The publishing industry breathes a collective sigh of relief as UK Government maintains UK’s copyright exhaustion regime – for now at least

fashion audience clapping

Are clothing designs too lacking in RAW originality and creativity to be afforded copyright protection?

The-Show-Must-Go-On-v2

“The Show Must Go On”

Sampling in the music industry – a hard Kraft to master

blog-banner

EU Copyright Directive – Is this the answer or will it leave creatives worse off?

View our brochure below or download it here.
Previous Post: «data wires Counterfeit Goods and Online Sales
Next Post: Reputation protection and social media/fake news Reputation-protection-and-social-media-fake-news»

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Keep Up To Date

If you would like to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).  See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

RECENT POSTS

“More Valuable than Gold or Oil” – Commercialising your Copyright

It is reported (25 January 2023) that pop mega-star Justin …

Buyer Beware – Copyright and NFTs

Blockchain, cryptocurrency and NFTs can be divisive. For some …

Keeping Secrets – The Benefits of Good Confidentiality Agreements

Confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) often get …

Hook, line and sinker – How Ed Sheeran won in court.

After an 11-day High Court trial in London, Ed Sheeran has …

The publishing industry breathes a collective sigh of relief as UK Government maintains UK’s copyright exhaustion regime – for now at least

In the summer of 2021, the Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) …

Footer

Our Team

  • Paul Motion
  • Lynn Richmond
  • Lauren McFarlane

Our Offices

BTO Solicitors LLP
Edinburgh: 0131 222 2939
One Edinburgh Quay
Edinburgh, EH3 9QG
Glasgow: 0141 221 8012
48 St. Vincent Street
Glasgow, G2 5HS

Our Expertise

Find out more about our legal services to the creative industries.
Learn More →

Newsletter

Sign up to receive BTO BeCreative updates by email CLICK HERE (opens a new email).   See our Privacy Notice for information on how we process your data.

  • E-mail
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

© 2023 BTO Solicitors LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Notice · Cookie Policy · Terms & Conditions· Anti-Money Laundering Policy

Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}