Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. BSN Medical Limited and BSN Medical GmbH (Cutimed Siltec wound dressings), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 17 December 2009, Case No. HC09C037755.
BSN contends that infringement proceedings brought by Mölnlycke be stayed (based on Article 27 of Regulation No. 44/2001) until jurisdiction of the Stockholm District Court in co-pending declaratory proceedings related to the patent is established. MAB applies for an interim injunction until judgment or further order.
Justice Flyd states that the purpose of Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires a flexible approach to the meaning of 'same parties'. It would be wrong to treat MUK as the same party when the effect may be to deprive it of the benefit of its exclusive license. Justice Floyd refuses the stay on the basis that the parties are not identical. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the causes of action are identical. The injunction applied for was refused as MAB and MUK have not behaved like parties who need urgent protection against BSN's competition.
Read the judgment (in English) here.