Research In Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation [2008] EWCA Civ 153 (06 March 2008)

Research In Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation [2008] EWCA Civ 153 (06 March 2008)

The English and Italian proceedings were not 'related actions' within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation 44/2001 because the connection between them was not sufficiently close, nor was the risk of inconsistent judgments sufficiently great to require a stay or consolidation. The substance of the English proceedings concerned a declaration about an English patent and a particular product, while the Italian proceedings concerned other designations and different products. The area of potential conflict was too limited to justify treating the actions as related for the purposes of the Regulation.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 153
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Research in Motion UK Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Visto Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Litigation, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Declarations of Non Infringement, Lis Pendens, Related Actions Under Regulation 44/2001
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure European Union Law Patent Litigation Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Declarations of Non Infringement Lis Pendens +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Research in Motion UK Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Visto Corporation

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (patents Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English and Italian proceedings are 'related actions' under Article 28 of Regulation 44/2001
  2. 2 Whether the English court was first seised for the purposes of the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the English court should stay or decline jurisdiction over Visto's counterclaim for abuse of process under Italian law (Art. 96)

Ratio Decidendi

The English and Italian proceedings were not 'related actions' within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation 44/2001 because the connection between them was not sufficiently close, nor was the risk of inconsistent judgments sufficiently great to require a stay or consolidation. The substance of the English proceedings concerned a declaration about an English patent and a particular product, while the Italian proceedings concerned other designations and different products. The area of potential conflict was too limited to justify treating the actions as related for the purposes of the Regulation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of Lewison J stands.