Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 182 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWHC 802 (Pat)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Pumfrey J

Representation 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.
Judgment Dates: 12 April 2006

Catchwords

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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.