Research In Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation

Research In Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corporation

The English and Italian proceedings are not 'related actions' within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation 44/2001. The connection between the actions is not sufficiently close, nor is the risk of inconsistent judgments sufficiently great, to require that they be heard together. The English court was not first seised for the purposes of the Regulation, and the Italian court is the appropriate forum for the Art. 96 abuse of process claim. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Research in Motion UK Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Visto Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Litigation, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Lis Pendens, Related Actions Under Regulation 44/2001
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure European Union Law Patent Litigation Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Lis Pendens Related Actions Under Regulation 44/2001

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Research in Motion UK Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Visto Corporation

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

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 the counterclaim for abuse of process (Art. 96 Italian Civil Procedure Code)

Ratio Decidendi

The English and Italian proceedings are not 'related actions' within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation 44/2001. The connection between the actions is not sufficiently close, nor is the risk of inconsistent judgments sufficiently great, to require that they be heard together. The English court was not first seised for the purposes of the Regulation, and the Italian court is the appropriate forum for the Art. 96 abuse of process claim. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The substantive order of Lewison J stands: the court to decide any Art. 96 claim is the Italian court, not the English court.