||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 182 (Apr)
|| EWHC 802 (Pat)
||Roger Henderson QC and James Abrahams (instructed by Bird & Bird) for the claimant.
||Antony Watson QC, Colin Birss and Geoffrey Pritchard (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the defendant.
||12 April 2006
Patent - Licence - Essentiality - Claimant seeking declaration of non-essentiality of defendant's patents to mobile telephony system standard - Whether claim should be struck out - CPR Pt 3, 24.
On an application under CPR Pt 3 and Pt 24, although it had to be assumed that the respondent's factual allegations were true where a genuine dispute of fact arose, that principle had to be viewed through the prism provided by the complexity and difficulty of the action as a whole. The court was not bound to accept unthinkingly everything said by a party in its statement of case, which might be obviously devoid of substance.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary