Vestel Elektronik Sanayi VE Ticaret AS Vestel UK Ltd v HEVC Advance LLC & Anor

Vestel Elektronik Sanayi VE Ticaret AS Vestel UK Ltd v HEVC Advance LLC & Anor

The court found that Vestel failed to establish a good arguable case that Vestel UK suffered or would suffer direct and significant damage within the jurisdiction as a result of the alleged abuse. None of the CPR PD 6B jurisdictional gateways were satisfied, and England was not the proper forum. Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction over the claims against Advance or Philips.

Parties
Claimant: Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS; Claimant: Vestel UK Limited; Defendant: HEVC Advance LLC; Defendant: Koninklijke Philips NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial/ip/competition / Jurisdictional Challenge; Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Applications by Advance and Philips succeed; court has no jurisdiction over claims against either defendant.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, FRAND Licensing, Jurisdiction, Patent Pools, Declaratory Relief
Competition Law Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominant Position FRAND Licensing Jurisdiction Patent Pools Declaratory Relief

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS

Claimant

Vestel UK Limited

Claimant

HEVC Advance LLC

Defendant

Koninklijke Philips NV

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/ip/competition / Jurisdictional Challenge; Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over claims for abuse of dominant position against foreign defendants under art.102 TFEU and s.18 Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether claimants have suffered or will suffer direct and significant damage within the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether claims fall within CPR Practice Direction 6B jurisdictional gateways

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Vestel failed to establish a good arguable case that Vestel UK suffered or would suffer direct and significant damage within the jurisdiction as a result of the alleged abuse. None of the CPR PD 6B jurisdictional gateways were satisfied, and England was not the proper forum. Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction over the claims against Advance or Philips.

Court Disposition

Applications by Advance and Philips succeed; court has no jurisdiction over claims against either defendant.

Orders

  • Claims against HEVC Advance LLC and Koninklijke Philips NV are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Permission to amend particulars of claim is refused as it would not cure jurisdictional defects.