Kigen (UK) Ltd v Thales Dis France SA (a company incorporated under the laws of France)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Douglas Campbell |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 369 (Pat) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HP-2022-000011 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
[2023] EWHC 369 (Pat)
RECORDER Douglas Campbell KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Patents Court)
Case No: HP-2022-000011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
PATENTS COURT
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Written submissions by Sukhjit Dhadwal of Reed Smith LLP) for the Claimant
Written submissions by Thomas Jones of Counsel (instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP) for the Defendants
Application considered on the papers
RECORDER Douglas Campbell KC:
I have two applications before me.
1) The first is an application made under paragraph [15] of my Order dated 2 February 2023 whereby I am asked to approve or revise the parties' Stage 1 Costs Budgets (“the Stage 1 Costs Budgets Application”).
2) The second is an application by the Defendants dated 16 February 2023 whereby the Defendants seek permission to rely upon their Amended Costs Budget filed and served on 9 February 2023 (“the Defendants' Amended Costs Budget Application”).
Although the sums at stake are substantial, the written submissions from both sides have helpfully crystallised the issues to be decided. I will not prolong this judgment by extensive quotation from these submissions but will simply set out my essential reasoning and conclusions.
It is convenient to take the Defendants' Amended Costs Budget Application first. This Application is not opposed by the Claimant and I am in no doubt that I should grant it. In particular I agree with Thales's analysis of the legal position, and note that their application to correct errors in their original budget was made promptly. I do however accept Kigen's submission that Thales should bear the costs of rectifying those errors, ie the costs of this application.
I now turn to the Stage 1 Costs Budgets Application. My initial impression was that each side's Stage 1 Costs Budget exceeded the reasonable and proportionate costs of each phase, having regard to the factors set out at CPR Part 44.3(5) and 44.4(3): see PD3E paragraph 5. Neither side has given any real explanation as to why the pleadings and CCMC should be so expensive. Kigen has at least addressed the factors set out in CPR...
To continue reading
Request your trial