LISA DRÄXLMAIER GMBH v BOS GMBH & CO. KG

Expedition requires real, objectively assessed urgency and a good reason, evaluated against the court’s resources and the interests of other court users. The relevant considerations include the four Gore factors: good reason, administration of justice, prejudice and special factors.

A foreign injunction gap may support expedition where the UK trial includes validity, but it is never sufficient alone. A judgment’s possible commercial or “spin-off” value may be legitimate, yet it must be supported by evidence of the commercial context. An infringement-only trial may exceptionally be expedited, but a desire to influence parallel foreign proceedings does not ordinarily justify queue-jumping.

The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement of the UK designation of a European patent concerning vehicle sun blinds. Parallel infringement proceedings concerning the German designation were pending before the Landgericht Düsseldorf, with trial listed for December 2022.

The claimant applied for expedition of a combined hearing of three other applications, seeking a UK decision before the German trial. Validity was not in issue, and the defendant had allowed the UK designation to lapse, offered to surrender it and undertaken not to enforce it in the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether those circumstances established a good reason to expedite.

1. The application was refused. The claimant had not demonstrated any reason, let alone a good reason, for expedition.

2. The court adopted the principles summarised in Abbott v Dexcom. Expedition is governed by the overriding objective and requires real, objectively viewed urgency. The court must consider: whether there is a good reason; whether expedition would interfere with the good administration of justice; whether it would prejudice the other party; and any special factors. The categories of case are not closed.

3. Commercial certainty must be assessed in context and established by evidence. Expedition involves queue-jumping, so the interests of other litigants and court users are material. The possibility that a UK judgment may assist a German infringement court is a factor, but it is insufficient by itself.

4. The authorities establish that a UK judgment on validity may have “spin-off” value in parallel European proceedings. Where validity is in issue, and other reasons for expedition exist, the possibility that the decision may assist a German court in addressing an injunction gap can support expedition. It cannot independently justify it.

5. The court did not exclude expedition of an infringement-only trial in an appropriate case where a judgment might provide greater commercial certainty in another contracting state. That possibility did not assist this claimant. There was no injunction gap, validity was not in issue, and the Düsseldorf court did not require assistance from a UK decision on infringement of the UK designation.

6. The claimant’s principal purpose was to influence the German proceedings. That purpose was insufficient to justify displacing other litigants. The application to expedite the combined hearing was therefore refused.