Here's an interesting decision on patents from the Court of Appeal, decided last Thursday. In the latest installment of Celltech R&D Ltd v Medimmune Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 1331. Medimmune was appealing against the refusal of its application for a stay of Celltech's action against it. Celltech and Medimmune were party to patent licence under which Medimmune agreed to pay royalties for products sold or manufactured that would, but for the licence granted, infringe Celltech's "Adair" patents. Clause 13 of the agreement conferred jurisdiction relating to liability issues upon the English courts. Celltech subsequently alleged that Medimmune infringed its US "Adair 2" patent when it made and sold its Synagis treatment for respiratory tract infection in the US and sought royalties under the licence agreement, whereupon Medimmune commenced US proceedings for declarations that US Adair 2 was invalid and that Synagis did not infringe it.
Celltech, having applied to the US court to decline jurisdiction over the claim for a declaration of non-infringement, then sued Medimmune in England, while Medimmune applied for a stay of the English proceedings pending the outcome of the US action. Mr Justice Laddie, ruling that the licence agreement conferred jurisdiction on the English courts, refused to stay the English proceedings.
The Court of Appeal has now dismissed Medimmume's appeal. In its view Clause 13 conferred jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the performance of the agreement upon the English courts, which would have no difficulty in applying the appropriate foreign law in respect of the scope of a foreign patent. The commercial basis of clause 13 was to select a jurisdiction with a specialist, experienced court that could determine all issues of infringement in relation to patents from many different jurisdictions.
The IPKat cannot fault the Court of Appeal's logic. The choice of a single arbitrary locus for patent dispute litigation adds a dose of practical reality and certainty to the dispute resolution process which, if respected by the parties, should save time, trouble, effort and money. It's good to see exclusive jurisdiction clauses enforced in situations such as this.
Other English courts that are less often invoked for dispute resolution purposes here, here and here
Celltech, having applied to the US court to decline jurisdiction over the claim for a declaration of non-infringement, then sued Medimmune in England, while Medimmune applied for a stay of the English proceedings pending the outcome of the US action. Mr Justice Laddie, ruling that the licence agreement conferred jurisdiction on the English courts, refused to stay the English proceedings.
The Court of Appeal has now dismissed Medimmume's appeal. In its view Clause 13 conferred jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the performance of the agreement upon the English courts, which would have no difficulty in applying the appropriate foreign law in respect of the scope of a foreign patent. The commercial basis of clause 13 was to select a jurisdiction with a specialist, experienced court that could determine all issues of infringement in relation to patents from many different jurisdictions.
The IPKat cannot fault the Court of Appeal's logic. The choice of a single arbitrary locus for patent dispute litigation adds a dose of practical reality and certainty to the dispute resolution process which, if respected by the parties, should save time, trouble, effort and money. It's good to see exclusive jurisdiction clauses enforced in situations such as this.
Other English courts that are less often invoked for dispute resolution purposes here, here and here
SYNAGIS LITIGATION WILL REMAIN IN ENGLAND, RULES COURT OF APPEAL
![SYNAGIS LITIGATION WILL REMAIN IN ENGLAND, RULES COURT OF APPEAL]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, October 25, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html