Case No. CC-12-P-01174

1.This is a further stage in the litigation between the Claimants (“Abbott”) and the First Defendant (“Design & Display”) regarding the latter’s infringement of the Abbott’s patent for slatted display panels. The principal component of the invention is a type of insert which is located into slots in the panels and which supports shelves or hangars. 2.The present dispute arises from my judgment dated 26 April 2017, [2017] EWHC 932 (IPEC) in the trial of the account of profits due to Abbott as a consequence of Design & Display’s infringement (“the Second Account Judgment”). The relevant background facts are set out in that judgment and I will not repeat them here. I will also be referring to my judgment of 4 September 2014, [2014] EWHC 2924 (“the First Account Judgment”) from which there was an appeal and to the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 24 February 2016, [2016] EWCA Civ 95 (“the Appeal Judgment”). 3.In the Second Account Judgment I considered two matters remitted to this court by the Court of Appeal: (1)The proportion of sales of slatted panels sold together with infringing inserts to be included within the Account of Profits. (2)The deductions corresponding to general overheads which Design & Display was entitled to make from its profits due to be paid over to Abbott. 4.I ruled on those two matters and invited the parties to calculate the profit, if any, to be paid by Design & Display to Abbott pursuant to my rulings. 5.The parties have been unable to agree the sum due. Abbott says that it is £128,831.63, while Design & Display contends that it is nil because on a correct analysis Design & Display ran a net loss on its infringing business after costs. The discrepancy stems from a disagreement as to which overheads incurred in Design & Display’s business can properly be deducted from gross profits to arrive at a figure for net profit or loss. 6.There are also consequential issues regarding costs and there is an application by Abbott for permission to appeal.