Skip to Main Content
Alpha

Help us to improve this service by completing our feedback survey (opens in new tab).

None

[2010] EWCA Civ 1053

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 1053
Case No: A3/2010/0210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION PATENTS COURT

The Hon Mr Justice Floyd

HC09 C03755

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 12/10/2010

Before:

THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE JACOB

and

THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE PATTEN

Between:

(1) Mölnlycke Health Care AB

(a company incorporated under the laws of Sweden)

(2) Mölnlycke Health Care Limited

Respond-ents/

Claimants

- and -

(1) BSN Medical Ltd

(2) BSN Medical GMBH ( a company incorporated under the laws of Germany)

Appellants/Defendants

Piers Acland QC (instructed by Mayer Brown) for the Respondents/Claimants

Antony Watson QC (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the Appellants/Defendants

ON AN APPLICATION IN WRITING

Judgment

Jacob LJ (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.

The Court has considered a number of written representations from the solicitors for BSN seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from our decision of 30th July 2010. No application for such permission was made at the time we gave that decision, though it obviously could have been.

2.

The case turned on whether the Swedish Court was first seized of the issue of whether or not the Mölnlycke patent claim covered the BSN actual products. We asked the Swedish Judge whether that was in issue and got a clear answer – not “as the case stands now.”

3.

The matter relied upon for permission to appeal concerns communications between the Swedish Judge and the lawyers for BSN subsequent to our decision and a subsequent decision in Germany. The suggestion is that these materials show that the Swedish court may be seized of the issue.

4.

Whether it is already so seized turns entirely on the evidence. As the evidence stood before us it was clearly not so seized. No question of principle - still less one of general importance – arises.

5.

For that reason we refuse permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[2010] EWCA Civ 1053

Download options

Download this judgment as a PDF (67.7 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download this judgment as XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.