Hand Held Products, Inc & Anor v Zebra Technologies Europe Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 640 (Ch) (23 March 2022)

Hand Held Products, Inc & Anor v Zebra Technologies Europe Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 640 (Ch) (23 March 2022)

Zebra Technologies Corporation does not have a place of business or carry on activities at Bourne End within the meaning of CPR r 6.9(2); service at Bourne End was invalid. ZTC did not submit to the jurisdiction by serving notice under CPR r 7.7(1), and CPR Part 11 is not the exclusive procedure for challenging jurisdiction based on non-service.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 640 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hand Held Products, Inc; Claimant: Metrologic Instruments, Inc; Defendant: Zebra Technologies Europe Ltd; Defendant: Zebra Technologies Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Application Under CPR R 7.7(3) to Dismiss Claim for Non Service
Outcome
Application granted; declaration that ZTC was not duly served at Bourne End.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Patent Infringement, Corporate Structure, CPR R 6.9(2), CPR R 7.7(3)
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Service of Process Jurisdiction Patent Infringement Corporate Structure CPR R 6.9(2) CPR R 7.7(3)

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hand Held Products, Inc

Claimant

Metrologic Instruments, Inc

Claimant

Zebra Technologies Europe Ltd

Defendant

Zebra Technologies Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Application Under CPR R 7.7(3) to Dismiss Claim for Non Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZTC) was properly served at Bourne End under CPR r 6.9(2)
  2. 2 Whether ZTC submitted to the jurisdiction by serving notice under CPR r 7.7(1)
  3. 3 Whether CPR Part 11 is the exclusive procedure for challenging jurisdiction based on non-service

Ratio Decidendi

Zebra Technologies Corporation does not have a place of business or carry on activities at Bourne End within the meaning of CPR r 6.9(2); service at Bourne End was invalid. ZTC did not submit to the jurisdiction by serving notice under CPR r 7.7(1), and CPR Part 11 is not the exclusive procedure for challenging jurisdiction based on non-service.

Court Disposition

Application granted; declaration that ZTC was not duly served at Bourne End.

Orders

  • Claimants given opportunity to apply for permission to serve ZTC out of the jurisdiction.
  • No dismissal of claim against ZTC at this stage.