Can a contract be made in two different jurisdictions? Yes, says the High Court
In Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc, the court has confirmed that, where the negotiations are complex, a contract can be made in two jurisdictions, applying the decision of Mann J in Apple Corps v Apple Computer from 2004 ( EWCH 768 (Ch)).
Conductive Inkjet Technology (CIT) was an English technology company operating in the field of inkjet printing. Uni Pixel Displays (UPD) was a Texan company involved in the design and manufacture of films to be incorporated into touch panels.
In May 2005, UPD and CIT (together with another associated company) entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding the use of CIT’s technologies for a particular project (the 2005 NDA). The 2005 NDA contained no governing law or jurisdiction clause…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The most likely option is the use of EC-approved Model Contracts
Court finds EC’s decisions to grant marketing authorisations for two generic products were consistent with legal provision.