Misplaced Pages

#325674

50-532: The order is named after the 1975 English case of Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Limited , dealing with the theft of trade secrets, although the first reported such order was granted by Templeman J earlier that year. They are now formally known as search orders in England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, and India. In Anton Piller , Lord Denning described the nature of the relief: Let me say at once that no court in this land has any power to issue

100-678: A MacMahon Scholar. He also practised at the Chancery bar. One notable case which he worked on was Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission in which he was counsel for the respondents, the Foreign Compensation Commission. Templeman became a member of the Bar Council in 1961, and was made a Queen's Counsel in 1964. He was elected a Bencher of the Middle Temple in 1969. He was Attorney-General of

150-546: A common ex parte procedure in intellectual property related cases in some other countries, such as Canada, France, and Italy. Anton Piller orders are known in France and Belgium as saisie-contrefaçon (literally, "infringement seizure") orders—in Belgium also as saisie-description (literally, "descriptive seizure") orders. The court order may only allow the description of the alleged counterfeited goods and processes, with

200-559: A detailed description, with or without effective seizure, of the allegedly infringing articles or processes. Such order shall be provisionally enforced. It may be subjected to a security on the part of the plaintiff. In that same order, the President of the Court may authorise the bailiff to carry out any enquiry required to ascertain the origin, nature and scope of the infringement. ... (emphasis added) Similar provisions are now required in

250-409: A line of argument after he had made up his mind, which earned him the affectionate sobriquet, "Syd Vicious". Lord Templeman was also renowned for his colourful language. In Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1979] 3 WLR 672 at 686 he remarked: "At some distant date, when the court has unearthed the unearthable, traced the untraceable and calculated the incalculable, there will emerge

300-476: A party who is found to be guilty of disposing of assets will be held to be in contempt of court. Like Anton Piller orders, their use is confined mostly to the UK. Article 9(2) provides that, in the case of an infringement on a commercial scale, judicial authorities may order a precautionary seizure of "movable and immovable property " which includes freezing the bank accounts and other assets. This may only be done if

350-543: A patent application or the owner of a utility certificate application or the owner of a patent or of a utility certificate shall have the possibility of furnishing proof by any means whatsoever of the infringement of which he claims to be a victim. He shall further be entitled, on an order given by the President of the First Instance Court of the place of the presumed infringement, to direct any bailiffs, accompanied by experts of his own choice, to proceed with

400-630: A person to refuse to do anything on the ground that to do so might tend to expose him or his spouse to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty". Hugh Laddie is generally credited with the "invention" of the Anton Piller order. An obituary in The Daily Telegraph stated that he later described the Anton Piller order "as a Frankenstein's monster that went far beyond his original design brief". In some jurisdictions (for example, Hong Kong and South Africa) where there

450-619: A result of an Anton Piller order, the court must ensure precautionary steps are taken to prevent any potential prejudice – including removal of counsel if no alternative is available. The Quebec Court of Appeal has recognized Anton Piller orders as being valid in that province under its civil law . Anton Piller orders have been granted by the High Court in William A. Grogan (copyright owner of RAMDIS) v. Monaghan Electrical Ltd & Michael Traynor (1998) related to an unlicensed copy of

500-497: A search warrant to enter a man's house so as to see if there are papers or documents there which are of an incriminating nature, whether libels or infringements of copyright or anything else of the kind. No constable or bailiff can knock at the door and demand entry so as to inspect papers or documents. The householder can shut the door in his face and say, "Get out." That was established in the leading case of Entick v. Carrington . None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in

550-630: A taxpayer would be considered. Notwithstanding this he was also famous for being a supporter of the Ramsay Doctrine and was notable for writing a scathing public letter (in retirement) to Lord Hoffman for wanting to move away from the Ramsay Principle in the Ramsay case. Ironically, during his time at the bar he had been active in advising on tax mitigation schemes for his clients, although this may have helped formulate his later views on

SECTION 10

#1732790982326

600-608: Is no statutory search order, the Anton Piller order is still often used. In South Africa, for example, in Mathias International Ltd v Baillache , the applicants instituted motion proceedings in which they claimed (i) an Anton Piller order and (ii) interdictory relief directed at prohibiting unlawful competition by the first and second respondents using the applicants' "confidential information". In Lock International plc v Beswick , Anton Piller orders were described as "intrusive". Anton Piller orders also constitute

650-715: Is not taken lightly by the courts and can result in penalties for its breach (see Columbia Picture Industries v Robinson [1987] Ch 38). Also of great importance is the likely effect of a search upon occupants of the premises, given in particular that the intrusion would otherwise be a trespass: Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Pennings (2020). The Supreme Court of Canada , in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. established guidelines for Anton Piller orders. The orders are meant to protect evidence from being destroyed, not to gain litigious advantage, and should only be issued if: The Court laid out basic protection for

700-439: Is the onus upon an applicant to establish proper grounds for obtaining such an order. This is due to the largely ex parte nature of the application. As such, an applicant must demonstrate not only that it has reasonable grounds for success in its case but must put the likely counter arguments of a respondent if that respondent were present to oppose the order being granted. This is a heavy burden faced by an applicant: its avoidance

750-536: Is tormented with the unshakeable belief that her daughter would be alive today if the respondent the West Yorkshire police force had been more efficient. That belief is entitled to respect and understanding. Damages cannot compensate for the brutal extinction of a young life." Templeman was an active freemason . Lord Templeman had two sons, Peter (a Church of England vicar) and Michael (a barrister). Lord Templeman died on 4 June 2014. Directive on

800-459: Is uncivilised." Templeman was also one of the dissenting judges in the famous case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112, arguing, inter alia , that sub-16-year-old girls should not be having sex and, therefore, cannot legally consent to being prescribed contraceptives by a physician (thus necessitating parental consent to obtain prescription contraceptives). Other significant cases, in which Lord Templeman appeared, were

850-597: The Spycatcher case (relating to the duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrecy Act) and dismissing the claims of the mother of Jacqueline Hill, the last victim of the Peter Sutcliffe (the "Yorkshire Ripper"), against the police for failing to apprehend the killer before he murdered her. During his time on the bench, Lord Templeman was known to be short with counsel who persisted with

900-642: The 4 Gorkha Rifles , and saw action on the Northwest Frontier, at Arakan , Imphal , and Burma. For his wartime service, he was mentioned in dispatches , and was demobilised as an honorary Major, and then later appointed an MBE for his war service. After the War, he returned to Cambridge to finish his studies, and read Law. He was called to the bar by the Middle Temple , where he was a Harmsworth Scholar, but joined Lincoln's Inn ad eundem as

950-548: The Court of Genoa , Italy, the Dutch company Philips , owner of patents on CD-R technology, requested and obtained an order of precautionary seizure over all Princo's movable and immovable property, including its bank accounts, with a view to ensuring the recovery of damages to be awarded at the end of the liability proceedings. A judgement in the case of Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and others v Delta Center A. S. (2016) extends

1000-681: The European Court of Justice if their civil procedures on the infringement of intellectual property rights are "unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays". Otherwise the Directive harmonises the rules on standing , evidence , interlocutory measures, seizure and injunctions , damages and costs and judicial publication . The Directive requires all Member States to apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy. Thus,

1050-649: The Information Society Directive and are, in principle, subject to national law. Apart from the ordinary injunctions of the previous paragraph there also exist the so-called Mareva injunctions in Article 9(2). In common law, these are ex parte and in personam orders used to freeze assets (including bank accounts) to prevent abuses of process. They can be issued as worldwide injunctions, preventing worldwide dispersal. In that case, their effectiveness depends on their in personam character, as

SECTION 20

#1732790982326

1100-676: The Directive is defined in Article 2. It applies to all infringements of IP rights in Community and national law, without precluding more stringent protection that the Community or national law may otherwise grant. The general obligation in the Directive is to provide for remedies necessary to enforce intellectual property rights. These shall be "fair and equitable" and must not be "complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays". They must furthermore be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and must not act as barriers to trade. The persons who are entitled to apply for

1150-762: The Duchy of Lancaster between 1970 and 1972. Templeman was appointed to the High Court and assigned to the Chancery Division in 1972, and received the customary knighthood . He was subsequently appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1978, and was sworn into the Privy Council . Sitting at first instance in EMI Limited v Pandit [1975] 1 All ER 418, he granted the first Anton Piller order in English legal history. On 30 September 1982, Templeman

1200-609: The European Court of Justice's decision in the L’Oréal v eBay 2011 case (relating to online marketplaces). The Tommy Hilfiger case held that under the third sentence of Article 11 of the Directive, operators of physical marketplaces, in this case Prague Market Halls, who sublet pitches to market-traders, may be forced to stop concluding contracts with market-traders selling counterfeit goods within their facilities, in order to prevent infringements of intellectual property rights by

1250-497: The Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006. The Directive has been implemented into Dutch law, and came into force on 1 May 2007. It has been implemented in France on 27 June 2008. The Swedish parliament voted to implement the Directive on 26 February 2009, and it went into force on 1 April 2009. The Directive has been widely criticised for what opponents called a draconian approach similar to

1300-653: The RAMDIS software system, Joblin-Purser v. Jackman and Microsoft v. Brightpoint , but the issue has not come before the Supreme Court and, owing to the civil nature of the order and the strong protection given to the family home in the constitution , it currently exists in something of a grey area. The Anton Piller case is the basis for rule 33.3 of the High Court rules. This rule states that: Orders comparable to Anton Piller orders have long been available in

1350-579: The United States under section 503(a) of the Copyright Act (17 USC, § 503(a)), which provides for the impounding of allegedly infringing copies of works and equipment for making them. In recent years, questions have been raised about the abusive use of these orders, and the doubtful constitutionality of the procedures used. More recent decisions in the field have tended to require that impoundment must be necessary, reasonable, and comport with

1400-451: The United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In fact, the criticism was so strong—especially from the telecommunications industry and parts of computer industry—that the original draft was substantially modified. A number of problems still remain in the final document, according to the international civil liberties organisation IP Justice . In the 2007 Princo Corporation, Ltd v Koninklijke Philips Electronics case before

1450-524: The aim of obtaining evidence of infringement, or may additionally allow real seizure to take place in addition to the description measures. Such a seizure is enforced by a bailiff , usually accompanied by at least one expert. It can take place on the premises of the alleged infringer, but also at a trade fair for instance. Art. L. 615-5. of the French Intellectual Property Code reads as follows (excerpt only): The owner of

1500-509: The applicant demonstrates that it is likely that recovery of damages will be endangered. Further to that, documents relating to banking and other financial transaction may be communicated. The provisions of the Directive were due to be implemented in all member states of the European Union by 29 April 2006. However, a number of states have not completed the necessary steps. The Directive has been implemented into United Kingdom law by

1550-421: The bench. Templeman also handed down a number of judgments which were very socially conservative. In R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 when considering whether injuries inflicted during sadomasochistic sex with the consent of all parties was legal, he said: "Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty

Anton Piller order - Misplaced Pages Continue

1600-412: The concept of "Sham Transactions" introduced in the case of Black Nominees Ltd v Nicol (Inspector of Taxes) . This case (which concerned an avoidance scheme adopted by the advisers of the actress Julie Christie ) was groundbreaking as for the first time, judges were able to depart from the controversial Duke of Westminster Doctrine. Consequently, the business/commercial motive of a transaction conducted by

1650-419: The defendant's permission. But it does do this: It brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders him to give permission—with, I suppose, the result that if he does not give permission, he is guilty of contempt of Court . Because such an order does not give the accused party the ability to defend themselves, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to

1700-750: The enforcement of intellectual property rights Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (also known as "(IPR) Enforcement Directive" or "IPRED") is a European Union directive in the field of intellectual property law, made under the Single Market provisions of the Treaty of Rome . The directive covers civil remedies only—not criminal ones. Under Article 3(1), Member States can be censured in

1750-512: The foundations of any civilised society". In Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 AC 1 when counsel tried to rely upon the decision in Sutton's Hospital Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 1 he said: "This argument strikes me as being not so much arcane as absurd." However, he was also capable of striking a deeply compassionate note. Whilst dismissing the claim of Anita Hill's mother for the murder of her daughter, he said: "The appellant, Mrs. Hill,

1800-473: The hands of the other party to be presented. The only requirement is for that party to present "reasonably available evidence sufficient to support its claim" to courts. In case of an infringement on a commercial scale, Member States must also take steps to ensure that "banking, financial or commercial documents" of the opposing party are presented. In both cases confidential information shall be protected. Measures for preserving evidence are available even before

1850-477: The important land law cases of Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386 and Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310. He also sponsored the Land Registration Act 1988 , which led to the land register of England and Wales being open to the public for the first time in 1990. Templeman is famous for paving the way for later judges to combat tax avoidance . He is famous for

1900-466: The judicial authorities may issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an "imminent infringement" of intellectual property rights or to prevent a continuing infringement. In the latter case, the order may be followed with a recurring penalty payment or lodging of a guarantee intended to compensate the rights holder (paragraph a). An injunction can also be issued, under the same conditions, against an intermediary, but these are covered in Article 8(2) of

1950-403: The other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the rights holder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed". These are interlocutory , ex parte and in personam orders known in the English and Irish jurisdictions as Anton Piller orders and in France as " saisie-contrefaçons ". At the request of an applicant,

2000-447: The proceedings commence. Article 7 provides that such measures may be granted under the same conditions as under Article 6 and include provisional measures such as "the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure" not only of the infringing goods (such as hard drives ) but also materials used in the production and distribution (e.g., French saisie-contrefaçon ). Such measures may be taken "without

2050-568: The purpose of the instrument is to regulate enforcement of intellectual property rights, not the rights themselves. The Directive leaves unaffected the substantive provisions on intellectual property, international obligations of the Member States and national provisions relating to criminal procedure and criminal enforcement. The subject-matter of the Directive is defined in Article 1. It applies to enforcement of intellectual property rights which include industrial property rights. The scope of

Anton Piller order - Misplaced Pages Continue

2100-446: The remedies are primarily the holder of intellectual property right, but also any person authorised to use it, such as licencees and intellectual property rights. Collective rights management and professional defence bodies may also have the right under certain circumstances. Section 2 of the Directive deals with the evidence. Article 6 gives the power to the interested party to apply for evidence regarding an infringement that lies in

2150-582: The requirements of due process. An Anton Piller order is often combined with a Mareva injunction , enabling an applicant to have the respondent's assets frozen so they cannot be dissipated to frustrate the judgment. This can, however, be disastrous for a defendant as the cumulative effect of these orders can be to destroy the whole of a business' custom, by freezing most of its assets and revealing important information to its competitors. Sydney Templeman, Baron Templeman Sydney William Templeman, Baron Templeman , MBE , PC (3 March 1920 – 4 June 2014)

2200-753: The rest of Europe, under Article 7 of the European Union Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights , approved in April 2004. Anton Piller orders are also used in Australia and are available on grounds similar to that of England. Each superior court jurisdiction provides rules and forms for the manner in which Anton Piller orders are available. In technical modern terminology, Anton Piller orders are referred to as "search orders", but "Anton Piller order" remains dominant in everyday use, including in universities. Of great importance

2250-414: The rights of parties involved. The protections in place are meant to protect solicitor-client privilege by preventing privileged documents from being disclosed. The search must be conducted according to the following guidelines: The supervising lawyer, referred to as an independent supervising solicitor (ISS), should: In addition, following the search: If counsel gains access to privileged documents as

2300-421: The slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorise the plaintiffs' solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendant's premises against his will. It does not authorise the breaking down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorises entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff must get

2350-648: The sum, which it is said belongs to the plaintiffs in equity. This sum, which is immune from the claims of Crown and mortgagee, debenture holder and creditor, a sum secured to the plaintiffs by a simple retention of title clause, which referred only to resin but was pregnant with all the consequences alleged in the statement of claim and hidden from the gaze of all other persons who dealt with the defendants." When he expressed judicial opinions - either on legal or social issues - he often did so in strident tones. In A-G for Hong Kong v Reid [1993] UKPC 36 , he referred to bribery as an "evil practice which threatens

2400-602: The three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in Anton Piller : In England, it has been reported that approximately 500 Anton Piller orders were granted per year between 1975 and 1980. During the 1990s, this rate had dropped tenfold. Although the name persists in normal usage, the common law application of this order has been largely superseded by a statutory search order under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 . A search order under this act "does not affect any right of

2450-472: Was a British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1982 to 1995. Templeman was born on 3 March 1920, the son of Herbert William Templeman (a coal merchant ) & his wife Lilian née Pheasant. He was educated at Southall Grammar School and St John's College, Cambridge , where he was a scholar and read History. His studies were interrupted by World War II . In 1941, he was commissioned into

2500-594: Was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created a life peer under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 , taking the title Baron Templeman , of White Lackington in the County of Somerset . Lord Templeman made significant contributions to English law during his time as a judge, both within and outside his specialist field of tax law and intellectual property law . He gave leading speeches upholding orthodox doctrine against calls for reform in

#325674