The High Court found that three individual defendants infringed Timothy Cremin’s central-heating patent, but awarded no damages because the plaintiffs provided no specific evidence of loss. The court also found that the dissolved company named as the first defendant was no longer a party and could not be subject to relief.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on 13 March 2012, concerned Irish Patent No. 1 264 146. Cremin and Oxyvent Limited had claimed that Ecoplus Limited and four individuals infringed the patent, misused confidential information, infringed copyright and conspired against them.
The court accepted evidence from patent attorney Barry Moore and engineer Jim McGovern that the Ecoplus product infringed the patent’s claims 1 and 5. It declared the second, third and fourth defendants—Phil Carolan, Humphrey O’Leary and Paul Murphy—liable for patent infringement. The court said the first four defendants were equally responsible for the infringement, while making clear that Ecoplus could not itself be subject to a declaration or other relief because it had been dissolved and no one had applied to restore it to the register.
The court dismissed the case against Declan Keane after granting his application for a direction that the plaintiffs had not made out a case against him. It accepted his evidence that he was not involved in the May 2001 due-diligence meeting and had been listed as an inventor without his knowledge.
The court was not satisfied that the defendants had breached confidence. Although the plaintiffs alleged that confidential technical information had been disclosed during negotiations and later used, the court said the evidence did not establish that claim. It also found no evidence of conspiracy.
The plaintiffs had claimed loss from being deprived of the opportunity to exploit the patent and from competition by Ecoplus. But they provided no specific evidence from the market, no evidence of attempted sales, and no particulars or proof sufficient to assess loss. The court therefore said it could not determine damages for patent or copyright infringement. It also declined to order an inquiry into damages or discovery of the defendants’ financial records, noting the lack of specific evidence and the evidence that the venture had incurred substantial debts.
The judgment records that Ecoplus had distributed fewer than 100 units through associated distributors, and that the venture was unsuccessful. It does not quantify any loss or award damages.