XCELOM LTD v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

XCELOM LTD v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The summons for interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs delayed inordinate time before seeking relief indicating lack of irreparable harm, damages at common law would be an adequate remedy and the defendants could pay, and there was no other reason to depart from the normal rule against granting an interlocutory injunction; accordingly balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiffs.

Citation
XCELOM LTD v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: XCELOM LIMITED (雅士能基因科技有限公司); 2nd Plaintiff: THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG; 1st Defendant: BGI HONGKONG CO., LIMITED (華大基因香港研發中心有限公司); 2nd Defendant: BGI HEALTH (HK) COMPANY LIMITED (華大基因健康科技(香港)有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Case Number
HCA3089/2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Application for Interlocutory Injunction (inter Partes)
Outcome
Summons for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience, Delay, Patent Validity, Priority Date
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Patent Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Irreparable Harm Balance of Convenience Delay Patent Validity +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XCELOM LIMITED (雅士能基因科技有限公司)

1st Plaintiff

THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

2nd Plaintiff

BGI HONGKONG CO., LIMITED (華大基因香港研發中心有限公司)

1st Defendant

BGI HEALTH (HK) COMPANY LIMITED (華大基因健康科技(香港)有限公司)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Application for Interlocutory Injunction (inter Partes)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried on alleged infringement of HK Patent No. HK1144024
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent an interim injunction
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs delayed inordinate time before seeking relief indicating lack of irreparable harm, damages at common law would be an adequate remedy and the defendants could pay, and there was no other reason to depart from the normal rule against granting an interlocutory injunction; accordingly balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Summons for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Order nisi under Order 42 rule 5B(6) that the defendants’ costs be taxed if not agreed and paid by the plaintiffs