Boegli-Gravures SA v Darsail-Asp Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Jacob,Lord Justice Patten |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 209,[2010] EWCA Civ 983 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2009/2495(B),Case No: A3/2009/2495 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 July 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 209
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE PATENTS COURT
(Mr Justice Arnold)
Before: Lord Justice Jacob
and
Lord Justice Patten
Case No: A3/2009/2495
Mr Tom Moody Stuart (instructed by Streathers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
(As Approved)
Lord Justice Jacob:
Mr Moody Stuart, we are going to give you permission to appeal, as may perhaps surprise you. The case will be listed for a day altogether. Speaking for myself, I have some reservations about the pyramidal point, but there is just about enough to take you over the hurdle. We both think there may be something in the anticipation point, not so much about the obviousness. I am not saying it is looking awfully strong, but that is not the same thing as saying it is wholly out of order.
Lord Justice PattenLord Justice Patten:
If you are going to seek to adduce the patent application as fresh evidence, then that application will have to be teed up and brought in formally and in time for the appeal. I do not think it should be dealt with separately from the appeal, but it will need to be listed as an application.
Order: Application granted.
[2010] EWCA Civ 983
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
PATENTS COURT
(Mr Justice Arnold)
Before: Lord Justice Jacob
Case No: A3/2009/2495(B)
Mr M Hicks (instructed by Redd Solicitors LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant/Respondent.
Mr T Moody-Stuart (instructed by Streathers Solicitors LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Appellants.
Lord Justice Jacob:
This is my final decision on the question of security for costs of the appeal. There were four points before me; the first was the amount of the security, I having decided there should be security because of the possible difficulties of enforcement in Russia. The amount between the parties was £45,000 as suggested by the patentees and a lesser sum suggested by the would-be appellants. It was suggested the sum should be less, because I should be guided by the principles in Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2002] 1 WLR 1868, and go for a figure which involves only the costs of enforcement in Russia. The difficulty with that submission is that the costs of enforcement, coupled with the delay which is also a significant factor, bring those sums very close to the sort of sum that is being asked for in any event. The figure I have chosen is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bapco Closures Research Ltd and Another v Selpac Europe Ltd
...on it, the skilled reader will be even more strongly inclined to read that clause as intended to describe that old art. 9 In Boegli-Gravures SA v Darsail-ASP Ltd [2009] EWHC 2690 (Pat), Arnold J cited the above and added as follows: 43. Counsel for Boegli submitted that, where the specifica......