More On Quid Novi; Harrods Cuts Losses

this comment on the Quid Novi determination lastly week, the IPKat expressed a footling anxiety virtually the haste amongst which summary judgment was ordered for copyright infringement, taking into concern human relationship the testify that the defendants had non yet submitted. He has since received this message from a duumvirate of IP enthusiasts who write equally follows:

"We read the weblog on Quid Novi Ltd together with roughly other v Innvotec together with others, together with nosotros intend it sounds similar Lewison J got it precisely correct together with from what he said i should non live concerned that he is jumping the gun on disclosure. While nosotros handgrip that, taken out of context, it is surprising to hear a gauge comment on the footing of "the dry soil of the testify ... equally it powerfulness have got been later on disclosure together with trial", inwards context that may non have got been so surprising. Disclosure is of course of teaching limited to disclosure of documents relating to the issues. The issues are defined inwards the pleadings. The defendants have got to plead something that is pleadable. If the gauge is satisfied that the is no prospect of the accused raising a pleadable final result beyond that of putting the claimant to proof, so the solely issues to which disclosure would apply would live the claimant's pleaded case. In a copyright activeness similar Quid Novi, this would presumably need proof of creation together with chain of title.

Bearing inwards take away heed that the claimant has to certify amongst a disputation of truth that it knows of no reasonable prospect of the accused defending the claim, it follows that the claimant cannot inside its duty to the courtroom live withholding cloth that would undermine the testify which it puts frontward (and that is equally adept a guarantee that nix equally held dorsum equally the disputation of truth that would look on the listing of documents). Lewison J was therefore, inwards our view, justified inwards final that the defendant's representative would non amend later on disclosure".

nonetheless remains slightly sick at ease. The defendants argued, amid other things, that disclosure was necessary for the operate of establishing whether Quid Novi's innovation constituted an master work. While the unoriginality of the claimant's piece of job is a defense strength that rarely succeeds, the gauge would have got to live pretty confident that the chain of factual causation leading to the creation of the claimant's piece of job was so clear that at that spot only wasn't going to live anything disclosable that powerfulness upset the presumption that the innovation was an master piece of job inwards which copyright subsisted.
here
Quo vadis blogged hither by the IPKat) considered that the correct affair to produce was (i) to position the relevant factual issues together with (ii) bound disclosure to those issues. Adding that a accused was non forced to base of operations a populace involvement defense strength on what was known at the appointment of publication, he so made surely orders for specific disclosure, including the data relating to all threescore senior executives. Harrods appealed.

The courtroom (Chadwick, Moore-Bick LJJ together with Lawrence Collins J) allowed Harrods' appeal inwards part. It held that

* since equity would non protect the correct of confidence inwards an iniquity, a accused was entitled to disclosure so equally to back upwardly that defense strength on populace involvement grounds.

* no accused was entitled to a roving enquiry into a claimant’s concern practices, so the width of the enquiry had to reverberate the width of the relief sought inwards whatever injunction.

* Warren J was correct to brand the lodge for disclosure that he had on the representative presented earlier him. However, later on Harrods abandoned its claim to trammel the publication of data other than that already published, at that spot was no ground for disclosing the data relating to whatever employees other than the 2 named inwards the article. His lodge would thus live varied, deleting the chip that required disclosure of data relating to the other 58 executives.

is disappointed that this determination has non yet appeared on the BAILII website. At introduce it lives equally a Federal Reserve annotation on the Sweet & Maxwell subscription service Lawtel. He thinks the determination is right, though, together with notes the subtle vogue inwards which a claimant, yesteryear narrowing elements of its claim, tin deflect the self-inflicted harm caused yesteryear large-scale disclosure.