IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
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
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):
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.
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.”
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.
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.
For that reason we refuse permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.