HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc

Applications for expedition of patent proceedings require a structured assessment of four matters: whether there is good reason for expedition, its effect on the administration of justice, prejudice to the opposing party, and any special factors. Parallel foreign proceedings may provide a legitimate reason, particularly where an English validity judgment could assist a foreign court, but ordinarily carry limited weight. Commercial importance may justify modest expedition. The greater the expedition sought, the stronger the justification required. The court must also consider the desirability of trying connected patent actions together, the interests of other litigants, related proceedings, practical preparation time and prejudice.

HTC sought expedition of patent validity and infringement proceedings concerning four Apple European patents. It sought a January 2012 trial for the proceedings concerning patent ‘859 because Apple had commenced related infringement proceedings in Mannheim, where an injunction might precede determination of validity. For the other patents, HTC sought trial in late March or April 2012. Apple did not seriously oppose the lesser expedition but resisted the January timetable. The central issues were whether the requested expedition was justified, whether it would impair the administration of justice, and whether it would prejudice Apple.

1. Applicable principles. The court adopted the four factors summarised by Lord Neuberger in W.L. Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622: good reason for expedition; interference with the good administration of justice; prejudice to the other party; and any special factors.
2. Commercial significance. Commercially significant patent disputes should be tried promptly where possible. The commercial importance of the smartphone market and the need for businesses and customers to know whether valid patent rights were infringed justified a modest degree of expedition.
3. Foreign proceedings. The possibility that an English validity judgment might assist a German infringement court in deciding whether to stay proceedings was a legitimate factor. It was not, however, a particularly strong factor. The German court was not bound by the English judgment, its timetable was uncertain, and other remedies and procedural options remained available.
4. Administration of justice and prejudice. The greater the expedition sought, the greater the justification required because expedition affects other litigants and the court. Separating the ‘859 proceedings from closely connected patent actions was undesirable. The court also had to allow for the possible expedition or joinder of Samsung-related proceedings. A January trial would place undue pressure on Apple and require expert evidence to be completed before the Christmas and New Year holidays.
5. Order. The actions concerning patents ‘022, ‘868, ‘948 and ‘859 were expedited, but only to the extent specified. The first three were to be tried at the first convenient date on or after 26 March 2012, within a window ending on 30 April 2012. The ‘859 proceedings were not expedited to a January 2012 trial.