BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hewlett-Packard GmbH & Anor v Waters Corporation & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 718 (10 May 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/718.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 718

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 718
A3/2001/1133

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
(Mr Justice Pumfrey)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Friday 10th May, 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
LORD JUSTICE RIX
____________________

(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD GmbH
(2) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
Claimants/Appellants
- v -
(1) WATERS CORPORATION
(2) WATERS LIMITED
Defendants/Respondents

____________________

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR R WYAND QC and MR D ALEXANDER (Instructed by Messrs Bird & Bird, London) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MR G HOBBS QC and MR T MITCHESON (Instructed by Messrs Shoosmiths) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS: We do not believe this is a case in which permission to appeal should be granted. Although the principles applied in Wheatley could be of interest to their Lordships' House, we do not see that the issues of infringement raised in this case are an apt vehicle for that purpose. The difference in view with the German court is probably due to the procedure as they have a split trial. In those circumstances, Mr Hobbs' submission as to problem and solution does not apply in Germany, where different courts decide infringement and validity. Their Lordships will have to decide whether this is an appropriate vehicle to look at application of the Protocol.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/718.html