Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Yeda Research and Development Co.Ltd v Rhone -Poulenc Rorer International (Holdings) Inc and ImClone Systems Inc. (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o16305 (17 June 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o16305.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o16305
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Yeda Research and Development Co.Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International (Holdings) Inc and ImClone Systems Inc. [2005] UKIntelP o16305 (17 June 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o16305
Patent decision
- BL number
- O/163/05
- Concerning rights in
- EP (UK) 0667165 B1
- Hearing Officer
- Mr R C Kennell
- Decision date
- 17 June 2005
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Yeda Research and Development Co.Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International (Holdings) Inc and ImClone Systems Inc.
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 section 37; Brussels Convention Art 22; Council Reg (EC) 44/2001 Art 28
- Keywords
- Stay of proceedings
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
Preliminary decision
Following the filing of a reference and statement by the claimant, the defendants (the proprietor and its exclusive licensee) in May 2004 sought a stay to await the outcome, initially of EPO opposition proceedings, but then when these were suspended, until the decision at first instance in parallel US entitlement proceedings expected to be heard end 2005 - early 2006.
The hearing officer refused to grant the stay, it weighing particularly that no date was yet fixed for the US proceedings, they would not necessarily be decided ahead of any decision by the comptroller, and would be unlikely to bind him. Affymetrix v Multilyte was cited by the claimant as the nearest case, and the hearing officer considered that it gave useful guidance although not being decisive of the matter.
Notwithstanding the citation by the defendants of precedent cases showing that a broad approach was taken to the avoiding the risk of irreconcilable judgments under the above-mentioned provisions of the Brussels Convention and its successor Regulation 44/2001, the hearing officer did not consider that there was any general public policy to this effect in respect of countries such as the US which were not bound by this regime.