Ablynx NV & Anor v Vhsquared Ltd & Ors

Ablynx NV & Anor v Vhsquared Ltd & Ors

The English court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(4) of Brussels I Recast Regulation because the proceedings are principally concerned with the validity of UK designations of the patents. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the licence agreement cannot override this statutory jurisdiction. There is no cause of action estoppel as the alleged infringing product (V565) was not in issue in the Dutch proceedings. Procedural defects in service were not serious or prejudicial. The application for a stay or dismissal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Ablynx NV; Claimant: Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Defendant: VHsquared Limited; Defendant: Unilever Nederland B.V.; Defendant: Unilever Nederland Holdings B.V.; Defendant: Unilever Research and Development Vlaardingen B.V.; Defendant: Unilever Ventures Holdings B.V.; Defendant: Unilever N.V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Jurisdictional Challenge / Ruling on Application for Stay and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Brussels I Recast Regulation, Cause of Action Estoppel, Service of Process
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Private International Law Patent Infringement Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Brussels I Recast Regulation Cause of Action Estoppel +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ablynx NV

Claimant

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Claimant

VHsquared Limited

Defendant

Unilever Nederland B.V.

Defendant

Unilever Nederland Holdings B.V.

Defendant

Unilever Research and Development Vlaardingen B.V.

Defendant

Unilever Ventures Holdings B.V.

Defendant

Unilever N.V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Jurisdictional Challenge / Ruling on Application for Stay and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(4) of Brussels I Recast Regulation over patent validity and infringement claims
  2. 2 Whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a licence agreement ousts the English court's jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be stayed in favour of Belgian courts or arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(4) of Brussels I Recast Regulation because the proceedings are principally concerned with the validity of UK designations of the patents. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the licence agreement cannot override this statutory jurisdiction. There is no cause of action estoppel as the alleged infringing product (V565) was not in issue in the Dutch proceedings. Procedural defects in service were not serious or prejudicial. The application for a stay or dismissal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The English court retains exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(4) of Brussels I Recast Regulation.
  • No stay or dismissal of proceedings.