Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related Content
CASE STUDY

“The forms and precedents section is essential so that I can quickly and easily look up provisions to include in templates or bespoke project contracts.”

RWE

Access all documents on Primary infringer

Primary infringer meaning

Published by a LexisNexis IP expert
What does Primary infringer mean?
A primary infringer is the person who carries out the core, originating act of IP infringement (for example, manufacturing or importing infringing goods, or using an infringing process), as opposed to downstream actors such as distributors or retailers. The label is descriptive; the underlying “primary acts” are specified in UK legislation for the unjustified (groundless) threats regime across patents, trade marks and designs. In England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, following the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017, a rights‑holder may threaten proceedings against an alleged primary infringer without incurring liability for unjustified threats, provided the threat is confined to primary acts and any pre‑action contact falls within the “permitted communications” safe harbours. Threats to secondary infringers remain restricted. In Ireland, while the statutes on groundless threats differ and do not use the same “primary/secondary” terminology, the practical distinction is recognised: communications directed to manufacturers or importers generally carry less threats risk than those to retailers or end‑sellers. Practitioners should check the specific Irish patent, trade mark and design provisions. In practice, identifying the primary infringer guides safe pre‑action strategy, target selection for injunctions and damages, and minimises exposure under the unjustified/groundless threats rules.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Primary infringer

NEWS
UK Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed: accessory IP liability requires knowledge; no joint account of profits; only personal gains recoverable; employees’ salaries excluded; loans not profits

Lifestyle Equities CV and Another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered its long‑awaited ruling on the appeal and cross‑appeals in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed, proceeding from Lord Justice Birss’s judgment in the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 675. Lord Leggatt wrote for the court, with Lords Kitchen, Lloyd‑Jones, Stephens and Richards agreeing. The judgment sets out a series of significant conclusions: Accessory liability (as a joint tortfeasor) in respect of a strict liability tort is not itself governed by the same strict standard. Conversely, an accessory must possess knowledge of the essential aspects of the tort to justify imposing joint liability on a person who has not themselves committed it. The identical test applies whether accessory liability is said to arise by procuring the tort or by participating in a common design with the primary tortfeasor. An account of profits sought from an accessory will therefore never...

Read More Right Arrow