The following IP Q&A Produced in partnership with Shobana Iyer of Swan Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
For the purposes of this Q&A, we have focused on the scenario where the principal (not necessarily as an employer) has an IPR indemnity clause in its favour, from an independent contractor not to infringe third party IPR. With regard to an employer relationship you may have to consider the limits of vicarious liability of the employer too; see Practice Notes: Liability of employers for the acts of their employees and others and Liability for independent contractors.
We have limited this Q&A to cover a general overview of the likely defences which the contractor may evoke from the question posed. It should be noted that judgments of the court are not like statutes, and precedents are always, to some degree at least, fact-sensitive. While a case may fall within a principle as enunciated in a judgment, a consideration of the facts of the particular case may show that the principle was being too broadly or narrowly stated.
Assuming the principal has a trigger to claim damages under the indemnity from the contractor (being the indemnifying party) for the losses it has incurred. If the principal had ‘directed the contractor to breach the patent’ this may have repercussions for the principal in enforcing the indemnity clause. The contractor may, depending on the facts of the case, be able to rely on some of the following defences
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below.Note: this Practice Note does not deal with the
Source of the doctrine of the separation of powersThe origins of the doctrine are often traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), in which he identified the 'executive' and 'legislative' powers as needing to be separate.‘… it may be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to
Produced with input from Rebecca Cousin of Slaughter and May on market practice.This Practice Note summarises the rules and guidance in relation to parties who are, or may be presumed to be, acting in concert for the purposes of The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code). In particular the
The Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS), currently in their 5th edition (2018 revision), are a set of standard conditions which are commonly incorporated into contracts for the sale of residential property. The Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (SCPC) are used for
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.