HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWCA Civ 1759 (12 December 2013)

HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWCA Civ 1759 (12 December 2013)

The judge erred in principle by refusing a general stay of the injunction pending appeal, focusing improperly on HTC's lack of contingency planning rather than the balance of economic consequences. The correct approach was to maintain the status quo, as the evidence did not justify distinguishing between the HTC One and other infringing products. The balance of hardship favoured a general stay to avoid irreparable harm to HTC's UK business, and issues of contingency planning were not relevant at this stage.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1759
Parties
Appellant/claimant and Counteraction Defendant: HTC Corporation; Respondent/defendant and Counteraction Claimant: Nokia Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Refusal of General Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; general stay of injunction granted pending appeal
Legal Topics
Patents, Injunctions, Stays Pending Appeal, Damages in Lieu of Injunction, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patents Injunctions Stays Pending Appeal Damages in Lieu of Injunction Balance of Convenience

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HTC Corporation

Appellant/claimant and Counteraction Defendant

Nokia Corporation

Respondent/defendant and Counteraction Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Refusal of General Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a general stay of the permanent injunction pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience justified a stay for all infringing HTC products or only the HTC One phone
  3. 3 Whether HTC's lack of contingency planning disentitled it to a stay for products other than the HTC One

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by refusing a general stay of the injunction pending appeal, focusing improperly on HTC's lack of contingency planning rather than the balance of economic consequences. The correct approach was to maintain the status quo, as the evidence did not justify distinguishing between the HTC One and other infringing products. The balance of hardship favoured a general stay to avoid irreparable harm to HTC's UK business, and issues of contingency planning were not relevant at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; general stay of injunction granted pending appeal

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed