Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
DR analysis: Roth J’s decision provides a useful reminder of the test to apply when seeking to serve out of the jurisdiction, however the value of the judgment comes in practical considerations raised when dealing with (1) difficulties associated with certain types of claims and what jurisdictional gateway may apply, (2) instructing experts to deal with foreign law and (3) forum non conveniens issues.
This case provides a number of helpful insights for practitioners:
Court: Patents Court, Chancery Division
Judge: Mr Justice Roth
Date of judgment: 7 October 2013
Conductive Inkjet Technology (CIT), the claimant, an English company is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Carlo, also an English company. Uni-Pixel Displays (UPD), the defendant, is a Texan company based in Texas.
The main dispute between the companies is the subject of two separate claims—first that UPD breached its confidentiality obligations to CIT and, second, that UPD wrongly applied for patents resulting from its collaboration with CIT. Both parties initiated proceedings in different jurisdictions so that concurrent proceedings are taking place in England and Texas.
The parties entered into various NDAs and agreements over a period of time:
While this case arises out of complex facts surrounding two non-disclosure agreements and other communications about those contracts, this report centres on the application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. For those interested in the patent aspects of the case, see the report produced by our IP/IT LexisPSL team: Jurisdiction dispute over patents and confidentiality.
The English court is being asked to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company and therefore CIT, the claimant, has the burden of establishing that the court should exercise its jurisdiction over that company and only if it can do that will the permission to grant service out of the jurisdiction stand.
The test to determine this was set out by the Privy Council in AK Investment being the need for there to be:
(1) a serious issue to be tried on the merits
(2) a good arguable case and
(3) for the English courts to be the appropriate forum to hear the dispute.
It is also important to remember that when exercising its discretion the court is required to identify the forum in which the case can most suitable be tried in the interests of both the parties and justice. However, it is for the claimant to persuade the court that England is that appropriate forum (Spiliada).
It was accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried and so the court judgment focuses on tests (2) and (3).
When considering what gateway applies it is important to bear in mind that the underlying concept is to show that there is a 'sufficient or appropriate nexus' of the foreign defendant to the English court.
Difficulty arises when dealing with a breach of confidence claim on the basis that it arises under the court's equitable jurisdiction; it is not a tortious claim (Douglas). There is therefore only one gateway under which a breach of confidence claim falls which is CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(2):
A claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction.
In this case, the alleged breaches of confidence predominantly took place in the US, which is where CIT would want the injunctions to have effect. The issue for Roth J to consider was therefore whether if injunctive relief was to apply both inside and outside the English court jurisdiction would the claim fall within this gateway. He held it would not. The scope of any injunction must only restrict acts in the jurisdiction as indicated by Megarry J in GAF (GAF Corpn v Amchem Products  1 Lloyd's Rep 601, para 61. Not available in Lexis®Library).
Roth J also pointed out that if several different types of injunction were requested and one fell within the gateway, this did not mean that permission would be granted for all the injunctive relief sought. Instead it was necessary to apply CPR Part 6 rules separately to each injunctive relief sought. Consequently, the English court may only be able to take jurisdiction over part, and perhaps a relatively small part, of the claim (see para 62). This follows the general principle set out in Donohue.
Roth J held that if CTI wished to continue with this aspect of its case, ie to prevent UPDI continuing to benefit from past breaches of the equitable duty of confidence and stop UPDI from enforcing any granted patents in question against CIT, it would need to 'reformulate' its claim taking a more restricted approach to enable it fall within one of the jurisdictional gateways. In doing so, the cause of action for equitable breach of confidence would survive.
This claim centred on the 2005 NDA. This was only in place for a short duration and limited to the early stages of the relationship between the two parties. At this stage of the proceedings, it was not possible to determine its significance in this claim.
The issue was whether it fell within the following gateway as contended by CIT:
3.1(6) A claim is made in respect of a contract where the contract—
(a) was made within the jurisdiction...
(c) is governed by English law
Editorial note: the judgment refers to the above requirements but links them to para 3.1(a) and (b)—references which do not exist within the practice direction.
The principle that Roth J considered in this instance was whether a contract could be made in two different jurisdictions simultaneously. He referred to the decision in Apple Corps which held that it was possible. In so doing, he had relied in turn on the House of Lords decision in Gibson where it was observed that in exceptional cases it may be difficult to ascertain the offer and acceptance in relation to a contract, eg where it simply boils down to who speaks on the final discussion first. In such cases, 'it is very arguably a much more satisfactory analysis to say that the contract was made in both places at the same time'. (Gibson).
On the facts in this case, Roth J took the same approach finding that CIT had a good arguable case that the contract had been made in both Texas and England and therefore fell within the relevant gateway.
CIT relied on gateway:
3.1(9) A claim is made in tort where—
(a) damage was sustained within the jurisdiction; or
(b) the damage sustained resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction
Roth J noted two issues in relation to this gateway:
A large part of the judgment deals with issues specific to patent claims and they are not covered in this report. However, Roth J also considered whether to stay proceedings on the basis that there had been a breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in 2010 NDA. In this case, the 2010 NDA was subject to the laws of the State of Texas. Both parties therefore sought expert evidence on the law of Texas as to whether this was an exclusive jurisdiction agreement for the purposes of the dispute under Texan law. The evidence was heard by use of the reports and submissions; the experts both based in the US did not attend. Roth J considered that UPD was trying to bring most of the breach of confidence claim under the remit of 2010 NDA to persuade the judge to stay the English proceedings in favour of the Texas court. This aspect of the judgment raises practical issues for those seeking to rely on experts especially those providing evidence as to foreign law.
Roth J disagreed with the conclusion given by UPD's expert. In doing so, he considered it clear that the expert's statement was 'demonstrably incorrect' and this was probably due to the fact that he had not been provided with the full factual basis of the agreement reached by the parties, ie he had not been given the CTI witness statements or contemporaneous documents surrounding the set up of the 2010 NDA. Roth J considered this failure by UPD to provide such evidence to their expert was 'surprising' given that the report was made some months after the witness statements had been served.
Roth J held that considering the facts and the submissions and found that there was no suggestion that the jurisdiction clause in the 2010 NDA provided the Texan courts with any form of exclusive jurisdiction and therefore the English court could reach its own conclusions. It seemed particularly important that the Texas court would not be hearing the trial or rendering judgment in the near future.
Applying the tests in Spiliada, Roth J had to consider whether the English court was the appropriate forum to hear the dispute between the parties. He held that it was. He considered various factors, which are considered below, but in doing so the fundamental question he had to answer was that stressed by the Supreme Court in VTB Capital, which is: 'is the court satisfied that England is clearly the appropriate forum?'. Considering the question in light of the factors, he took the view that England was probably the more appropriate forum but that had not been demonstrated clearly enough such that the English court should exercise its jurisdiction over UPD. However, in this instance, there was another factor to consider apart from those set out in Spiliada and Roth J considered it to be a very significant factor, which was that the European Patent Application Claim could only be heard in England and many of the issues that would need to be considered by the court were the same issues that arose in the breach of contract claim. While other aspects of the case could be stayed, the EPA would have to continue in England and Roth J considered that this would cause CIT great inconvenience and expense, as they were having to litigate many of the same issues in two jurisdictions. Roth J therefore found that on balance, England was clearly the most appropriate forum. Roth J did note that some of the injunctive relief claims being made by CIT could not be pursued in the English proceedings, as they did not fall within the 'jurisdictional gateways'. CIT may therefore have to commence proceedings in the US to pursue such relief. However, Roth J did not consider that this should 'detract from the fact that the underlying issues which remain in the breach claim should appropriately be tried here with the EPA claim'.
The factors Roth J considered were mainly neutral, with the exception of the availability of witnesses:
0330 161 1234