Vetco Gray UK Ltd & Anor v FMC Technologies Inc

Vetco Gray UK Ltd & Anor v FMC Technologies Inc

Scotland is the more appropriate forum for determining the dispute because the alleged infringement occurred there, the manufacturing base is in Scotland, and the issues in both proceedings are substantially similar. Parallel litigation would result in unnecessary duplication of costs and effort. The stay is granted for the main action but not for the second action, as the issues in the latter are not identical to those in Scotland.

Parties
Claimant: Vetco Gray UK Limited; Claimant: Vetco Gray Inc; Defendant: FMC Technologies Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Action / Application for Stay on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds
Outcome
Stay granted for main action (HC 06 C04490); stay refused for second action (HC 07 C00051); costs to be determined by costs judge with netting between parties; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Patents, Forum Non Conveniens, Stay of Proceedings, Revocation, Non Infringement
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Forum Non Conveniens Stay of Proceedings Revocation Non Infringement

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vetco Gray UK Limited

Claimant

Vetco Gray Inc

Claimant

FMC Technologies Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Action / Application for Stay on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English proceedings should be stayed in favour of Scottish proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds
  2. 2 Whether the issues in the English and Scottish proceedings are substantially similar
  3. 3 Appropriate forum for patent infringement and revocation claims

Ratio Decidendi

Scotland is the more appropriate forum for determining the dispute because the alleged infringement occurred there, the manufacturing base is in Scotland, and the issues in both proceedings are substantially similar. Parallel litigation would result in unnecessary duplication of costs and effort. The stay is granted for the main action but not for the second action, as the issues in the latter are not identical to those in Scotland.

Court Disposition

Stay granted for main action (HC 06 C04490); stay refused for second action (HC 07 C00051); costs to be determined by costs judge with netting between parties; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings in HC 06 C04490 stayed pending further judgment or order, including any appeal or further order in the meantime.
  • Proceedings in HC 07 C00051 not stayed; directions to be agreed between parties.