Flitcraft v the inventor: Court of Appeal allows late joinder after inventor’s dishonesty found at trial
Flitcraft Limited & Orsvthe inventor & Anor
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 27 February 2024
- Citation
- [2024] EWCA Civ 136
A co-claimant's separate, honest case can usually survive even if another claimant is found to have lied.
Flitcraft challenged a decision letting Supawall join the true patent owner after judgment, once the inventor was found to have lied about who owned the patents. The appeal was dismissed and the costs order below was largely upheld.
What happened
The inventor and his former company Supawall sued Flitcraft for patent infringement. The inventor claimed to own the patents; Supawall claimed as the exclusive licensee of those patents. At trial, the judge found the inventor had made up a story about assigning the patents away before going bankrupt. In fact the patents had passed to the trustee in bankruptcy and were held by the Official Receiver. That meant Supawall's licensee claim was technically defective, because the real owner hadn't been joined to the case as the Patents Act 1977 requires. The judge later allowed Supawall to fix this by joining the Official Receiver after judgment, and split the costs 60/40 between the inventor's failed claim and Supawall's successful one. Flitcraft appealed.
What did the court decide in Flitcraft Limited & Ors v the inventor & Anor?
The Court of Appeal agreed the judge was entitled to allow the late joinder. The requirement to join the patent proprietor is essentially a procedural one, and Supawall's licensee claim didn't depend on who actually owned the patents, so the inventor's dishonesty didn't taint Supawall's separate case. The court also upheld treating the inventor's and Supawall's claims as separate for costs purposes, and the 60/40 split. The appeal succeeded on one narrow point: an order that Supawall make an interim costs payment to Flitcraft was set aside, because overall Supawall was due to receive costs, not pay them.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that one claimant's dishonesty doesn't automatically sink a co-claimant's case, as long as that case stands on its own facts and law. Supawall's licensee claim didn't depend on the inventor's story, so it survived.
- If you're bringing a claim jointly with someone else, think about whether your case genuinely stands alone or whether it depends on the other party's evidence being believed.
- Technical requirements, like joining the right legal owner of a patent, can sometimes be fixed by amendment even quite late, but it's worth checking this before it becomes an issue at trial.
- When costs are split between claimants with different outcomes, keep track of the net position. Being ordered to pay an interim sum doesn't always reflect who actually owes money overall.
Things to be aware of
- This result depended on Supawall's claim being factually and legally independent of the inventor's dishonest claim; a co-claimant whose case is intertwined with dishonest evidence might not get the same outcome.
- The case concerns patents, not trademarks, so the specific procedural fix (joining the Official Receiver under the Patents Act 1977) won't apply directly to trademark disputes, though the general principle about separate claims may be relevant.
- Indemnity costs were ordered against the inventor specifically because of the fabricated evidence, a reminder that dishonesty in litigation carries its own costs consequences separate from losing on the merits.
The businesses involved
Flitcraft Limited
Registered in England in 2017 and still active, based in Bolton. Classified as a manufacturer of other products not elsewhere classified. Its website describes construction services including a product called InjectaWall.
- Companies House
- 10589566 Active
- Incorporated
- January 2017
- Registered office
- Bolton
- Business activity
- Other manufacturing n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 0
The inventor (defendant)
A claimant alongside a former company, Supawall, in the patent infringement claim. Found at trial to have made up a story about assigning away patents before bankruptcy; the patents in fact passed to the Official Receiver.
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2024] EWCA Civ 136 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
