When to stay and when to go? Court of Appeal recasts Glaxo guidelines in HTC appeal
The Court of Appeal has given judgment in the ‘stay’ application in the long-running patent dispute between IPCom and HTC. HTC had appealed the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceedings, and the appeal concerned the circumstances in which it is appropriate for an English court considering combined patent infringement and revocation proceedings to grant a stay pending the outcome of co-pending opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (EPO).
The decision has been eagerly awaited as the first decision on the point since the Supreme Court’s suggestion in its Virgin v Zodiac judgment that the lower courts must revisit the Glaxo guidelines for when UK actions should be stayed pending the outcome of EPO opposition proceedings.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal has taken up the mantle and recast the Glaxo guidelines, rewriting some points and adding others. The previous nine guidelines are replaced with 13. Notably, the reworked guidelines make clear that, if there are no other factors, a stay of the national proceedings is the default option — and it is for the party resisting the stay to show why it should not be granted. Parties who oppose a stay but still want to seek damages should be prepared to undertake to repay those damages on resolution of the EPO proceedings…
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
Birss J rules on product by process claim construction, extension of scope, added matter and obviousness in Hospira v Genentech.
We reflect on our pick of the 2014 legislative and case law highlights in the employment sphere. And, of course, our 2014 awards…