Australian Automation Company LeisureTech has accused the UK Company Armour Group of not being interested in settling their patent dispute over relating to the alleged infringement of A Bus patents prior to the matter going before the UK High Court. They also claim that they are “baffled” by the decision and are now considering an appeal.
Australian Automation Company LeisureTech has accused the UK Company Armour Group of not being interested in settling their patent dispute over relating to the alleged infringement of A Bus patents prior to the matter going before the UK High Court. They also claim that they are “baffled” by the decision and are now considering an appeal.
Jacqui Israel a solicitor acting for LeisureTech said “It was not ultimately disputed by Armour Group that its Systemline Modular products infringe LeisureTech patent. However, despite LeisureTech going to great lengths to seek to resolve this matter, including its directors travelling to the UK to facilitate meetings, Armour variously declined to meet, cancelled meetings and walked out of mediation without any reasonable discussion taking place”
“The inability of the parties to reach a commercial settlement is highly regrettable and as a result Armour’s Systemline Modular products remain effectively locked out of the US and other markets where LeisureTech holds a valid patent”
The Company went on to claim that the decision in the UK High Court is based on peculiarities of the English law and will not impact whatsoever on LeisureTech’s patents in Europe, US, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand which all remain valid and in full force and effect.
LeisureTech claims that the Armour Group filed an appeal in the European Patent Office, to be determined on an entirely different basis to the UK proceedings and LeisureTech remains confident that the validity of the European patent will be upheld.
LeisureTech is still evaluating the decision in the UK, but its exposure to Armour Group following the litigation is at worst limited to a proportion of their legal costs (far less than millions of dollars as has been suggested by one press report) and may depend on the decision regarding an appeal.
