Cloud Cycle Limited vs Verifi LLC and GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited

This case concerned a dispute between Cloud Cycle Limited (CCL) and Verifi LLC, along with its exclusive licensee GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited, over alleged patent infringement and the request for an interim injunction.

TLDR:

• Verifi LLC applied for an interim injunction against CCL.
• CCL sought summary judgment for non-infringement of the patent.
• The court dismissed CCL's application for summary judgment.
• The court also denied Verifi's request for an interim injunction.

The claimant, Cloud Cycle Limited (CCL), filed a claim for a declaration of non-infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 1 720 689, which pertains to a method and system for calculating and reporting slump in concrete delivery vehicles. Verifi LLC, the first defendant, counterclaimed for patent infringement and sought an interim injunction to restrain CCL from dealing in its allegedly infringing system in the UK.

At the start of the hearing, Verifi applied to join its exclusive licensee, GCP Applied Technologies (UK) Limited, as a second defendant in the counterclaim for infringement against CCL. The court granted permission for this joinder.

CCL's application for summary judgment was based on the argument that its system did not infringe the patent because it did not delete any previously stored measurements, a key feature of the patent claim. The court found that this argument required expert evidence and could not be resolved through summary judgment.

The defendants argued that there was a real prospect of establishing that CCL's system infringed the patent, either directly or by equivalence. The court agreed that the defendants had a real prospect of success at trial and dismissed CCL's application for summary judgment.

Regarding the interim injunction, the court applied the principles set out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried but concluded that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. The court considered the potential irreparable harm to both parties and determined that the risk to CCL of going out of business outweighed the potential harm to GCP.

In summary, the court dismissed both CCL's application for summary judgment and Verifi's application for an interim injunction. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the issues of patent infringement and validity.

Legal representatives: Richard Davis KC and Becky Knott (instructed by Potter Clarkson Llp LLP) for the Claimant, James Abrahams KC and Maxwell Keay (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Hacon

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 233 (IPEC)