NGPOD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd [2016] EWHC 3105 (Ch) (02 December 2016)

NGPOD Global Ltd v Aspirate N Go Ltd [2016] EWHC 3105 (Ch) (02 December 2016)

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues, the need for extensive witness evidence and disclosure, and the significant commercial value of the patents make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the complexity and misapplied the relevant factors, making his decision unsustainable.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3105 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: NGPOD Global Limited; Defendant/appellant: Aspirate N Go Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From IPO Hearing Officer Decision (entitlement to Patents) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Patents, Jurisdiction of IPO Vs High Court, Section 37 Patents Act 1977, Section 12 Patents Act 1977, Complexity and Forum Determination, Costs Regime in IPO Vs High Court
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Entitlement to Patents Jurisdiction of IPO Vs High Court Section 37 Patents Act 1977 Section 12 Patents Act 1977 Complexity and Forum Determination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NGPOD Global Limited

Claimant/respondent

Aspirate N Go Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From IPO Hearing Officer Decision (entitlement to Patents) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IPO should decline to deal with the entitlement claim under section 37(8) Patents Act 1977 and section 12(2) in favour of the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the complexity and nature of the issues make the High Court the more appropriate forum

Ratio Decidendi

The complexity and scope of the non-patent law issues, the need for extensive witness evidence and disclosure, and the significant commercial value of the patents make the case more properly determined by the High Court rather than the IPO. The hearing officer failed to appreciate the complexity and misapplied the relevant factors, making his decision unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Comptroller should decline to deal with the entitlement claim; the matter is to be determined by the High Court.