ABSTRACT

Damages in patent infringement claims differ with respect to whether the patentee would have manufactured his or her invention or process, or would have granted licences to third parties to exploit it. The distinction is illustrated in Pneumatic Tyre Co v Puncture Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co (1899), where there was an infringement of a patent for bicycle tyres. The court held that evidence which related to orders for tyres gained by the defendants should not have been assessed on the basis that the orders would have gone to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were only entitled to damages on the basis that the orders would have gone to licensees from whom the plaintiffs were entitled to a royalty.