Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni -Pixel Displays Inc

Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni -Pixel Displays Inc

The English court has jurisdiction over the EPA claim under Article 3 of the Protocol, which provides exclusive jurisdiction and precludes stay on forum non conveniens or case management grounds. The Breach claim may proceed in England if amended to restrict relief to acts within the jurisdiction, as England is the appropriate forum due to overlap of issues and witnesses with the EPA claim. The 2010 NDA does not supersede the 2005 NDA and does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to Texas for the dispute.

Parties
Claimant: Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd.; Defendant: Uni-Pixel Displays Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application to set aside permission for service out and stay dismissed; permission for Breach claim upheld in part subject to amendment.
Legal Topics
Patent Entitlement, Breach of Confidence, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Contract Interpretation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Patent Entitlement Breach of Confidence Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Contract Interpretation

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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd.

Claimant

Uni-Pixel Displays Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Permission for Service Out of Jurisdiction and Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has and should exercise jurisdiction over UPD for service out of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the EPA claim should be stayed on forum non conveniens or case management grounds
  3. 3 Whether the Breach claim falls within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the 2010 NDA

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over the EPA claim under Article 3 of the Protocol, which provides exclusive jurisdiction and precludes stay on forum non conveniens or case management grounds. The Breach claim may proceed in England if amended to restrict relief to acts within the jurisdiction, as England is the appropriate forum due to overlap of issues and witnesses with the EPA claim. The 2010 NDA does not supersede the 2005 NDA and does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to Texas for the dispute.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside permission for service out and stay dismissed; permission for Breach claim upheld in part subject to amendment.

Orders

  • EPA claim to proceed in England; no stay granted.
  • Breach claim permitted if amended to restrict relief to acts within jurisdiction; counsel to be heard on appropriate order.