Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 376 (01 April 2014)

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 376 (01 April 2014)

It is appropriate for the appeal in relation to both patents to be heard together, as they were joined at trial and share some common issues. No order as to costs is just, as both parties had merit in their positions and Samsung sought an indulgence. Costs occasioned by the adjournment are reserved to the appeal. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused as no significant point of general public importance arises. A stay is refused as the form of the patents is not yet settled and no abuse of process is established.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 376
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Apple Retail UK Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Apple Sales International
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Judgment on Form of Order Following Appeal and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
No order as to costs of the applications; costs occasioned by adjournment reserved; permission to appeal refused; stay refused.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Central Amendment Applications, Abuse of Process, Adjournment, Costs, Stay of Proceedings
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Central Amendment Applications Abuse of Process Adjournment Costs Stay of Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Appellant/claimant

Apple Retail UK Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Apple Sales International

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Judgment on Form of Order Following Appeal and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal in relation to two patents should be split or heard together
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs following adjournment and cross-applications
  3. 3 Appropriate timing and reservation of costs occasioned by adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate for the appeal in relation to both patents to be heard together, as they were joined at trial and share some common issues. No order as to costs is just, as both parties had merit in their positions and Samsung sought an indulgence. Costs occasioned by the adjournment are reserved to the appeal. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused as no significant point of general public importance arises. A stay is refused as the form of the patents is not yet settled and no abuse of process is established.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the applications; costs occasioned by adjournment reserved; permission to appeal refused; stay refused.

Orders

  • Single appeal hearing to proceed for both patents unless circumstances change.
  • No order as to costs of either application.