Samsung Electronics Co LTD v Apple Retail UK LTD & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 250 (11 March 2014)

Samsung Electronics Co LTD v Apple Retail UK LTD & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 250 (11 March 2014)

The pursuit of central amendment applications at the EPO by Samsung is not an abuse of process and is permitted by the EPC and domestic law. The appeal should be adjourned until the outcome of the EPO applications is known to avoid the risk of wasted costs and proceedings on a false basis. Apple's application to strike out the appeal is dismissed, but Apple retains the right to make further submissions once the EPO outcome is known.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 250
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Apple Retail UK Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Apple Sales International
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Samsung's application for adjournment allowed; Apple's application to strike out the appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Central Amendment Procedure, Abuse of Process, Adjournment of Appeal, Retrospective Effect of EPO Amendments
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure Patent Amendment Central Amendment Procedure Abuse of Process Adjournment of Appeal Retrospective Effect of EPO Amendments

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 Authorities cited 16 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

Patent Infringement and Revocation Appeal / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Samsung's pursuit of central amendment applications at the EPO pending appeal constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be adjourned pending the outcome of the EPO central amendment applications
  3. 3 Whether Apple's application to strike out the appeal unless Samsung withdraws its EPO applications should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuit of central amendment applications at the EPO by Samsung is not an abuse of process and is permitted by the EPC and domestic law. The appeal should be adjourned until the outcome of the EPO applications is known to avoid the risk of wasted costs and proceedings on a false basis. Apple's application to strike out the appeal is dismissed, but Apple retains the right to make further submissions once the EPO outcome is known.

Court Disposition

Samsung's application for adjournment allowed; Apple's application to strike out the appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal adjourned until outcome of EPO central amendment applications is known.
  • Apple's application to strike out the appeal unless Samsung withdraws EPO applications is dismissed.