Samsung Electronics Co LTD v Apple Retail UK LTD & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
Areas of Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dealt with an appeal concerning Samsung’s patents, which were found invalid at trial. Samsung sought to amend the claims through the European Patent Office (EPO), leading Apple to request the appeal be struck out. The court granted Samsung’s application for adjournment pending the EPO’s decision and dismissed Apple’s application without prejudice. The decision focused on the legislative framework and the retrospective effect of amendments made by the EPO.
Judgment
JUDGMENT ON FORM OF ORDER
Lord Justice Kitchin:
Introduction
This is the judgment of the Court. On 11 March 2014 we gave judgment providing our reasons for allowing an application by Samsung for an adjournment of this appeal and dismissing an application by Apple for an order requiring Samsung in substance to elect between this appeal and its central amendment applications. We invited the parties to agree a form of order reflecting our judgment. Regrettably that is not something they have been able to do. There are four issues in dispute and we will address them in turn.
Single hearing?
On 10 March 2014 the EPO issued a communication stating that the central limitation application in respect of the 404 patent can be allowed. The EPO’s initial response to the application in respect of the 726 patent has, however, been negative. Samsung is addressing the EPO’s concerns but says it is likely that the final determination of that application will take a further few months.
In these circumstances, Samsung submits that the substantive appeal in relation to the 404 patent should not be delayed pending the outcome of the application in relation to the 726 patent. It says that the appeals in relation to the two patents are materially different; that the patents relate to different technology; that at trial the patents were addressed by different legal teams and experts; and that the judge gave separate judgments in relation to them.
We do not believe it is appropriate to split the appeal in the way that Samsung suggests, at least at this stage. Samsung chose to sue Apple for infringement of the 726 and 404 patents in a single action and the judge made one final order in relation to it. The appeal against that order was originally fixed to be heard on 4 or 5 March 2014 with a time estimate of three days. Samsung then asked for an adjournment of the appeal as a whole and it did so for a relatively short period, indicating in submissions that its central amendment applications were likely to be determined by June 2014, if not before, that is to say about three months from the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. Moreover, as Apple says in response, there are some common issues, including the general question how an appeal should proceed in the light of a central amendment application made after trial. It has therefore chosen to use a single legal team on the appeal. In all these circumstances we are satisfied that it is still appropriate that ther