HP-2020-000016 - [2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch)

The final issue is the claim for declaratory relief on the patent threats claim, which Cabo seeks even if its primary damages claim fails. MGA says that there is no need for a declaration in circumstances where the threats occurred some time ago, Cabo has ceased trading, and MGA has given undertakings not to repeat the acts complained of as threats.

I do not accept MGA’s submissions on this point. As Laddie J observed in Dimplex v De’Longhi [1996] FSR 622, p.627, s. 70(2) of the 1977 Act reflects a general policy that prima facie where the tort of patent threats has been made out, then the claimant is entitled to relief unless there are good reasons for deciding otherwise. In the present case, notwithstanding its undertakings not to repeat the conduct, MGA vehemently disputed the existence of any actionable threats throughout the proceedings, contending that the communications in question did not constitute relevant threats and that Cabo was not a person aggrieved. Given my conclusion that MGA’s conduct was, contrary to MGA’s protestations, unjustified patent threats within the meaning of s. 70, it is appropriate to remove any doubt on the issue by making a declaration to that effect.