||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 282 (Jan)
|| EWCA Civ 23
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Ward, Mummery and Jacob LJJ
||Richard Arnold QC (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the defendants.
||Daniel Alexander QC and Justin Turner (instructed by Rouse Legal) for the claimant.
||31 January 2008
Patent - Revocation - Stay of proceedings - Concurrent proceedings - Opposition to grant of patent filed in European Patent Office by claimant - Claimant presenting claim for revocation of patent in English court - Patentee applying for stay of English proceedings pending decision of European Patent Office in opposition proceedings - Court refusing to grant stay - Whether judge erring - .
It was legitimate for a person contesting the validity of a European patent to attack it both in an action for revocation in the United Kingdom courts and by opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (EPO). The grant of a patent by the EPO did not create an estoppel which would prevent the UK courts from determining whether or not the patent should be revoked. The Court of Appeal offered general guidance on the Patent Court's discretion to stay legal proceedings on the ground that there were parallel proceedings pending in the EPO contesting the validity of the patent.
- 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
- 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
- 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