Aylo Premium Ltd & Anor v Aylo Premium Ltd & Ors

Expedition of a patent trial requires real, objectively viewed urgency. The court must then assess the good reason for expedition, its effect on the administration of justice, prejudice to the opposing party, and any special factors. Parallel German proceedings may contribute to urgency, particularly where the applicant has a genuine UK commercial interest, but that factor is not sufficient by itself. The likely utility of a UK judgment, the possibility of prompt judgment, the impact on other court users, and the parties’ preparation must be assessed together.

The Patents Court’s 12-month listing objective is practical rather than mathematical. A case should not ordinarily be moved substantially ahead of the applicable trial window where it can be tried within 12 months or shortly thereafter.

This was a first-instance procedural application concerning two related patent actions about adaptive rate video streaming. DISH had commenced UK proceedings concerning the ‘680 patent and related proceedings in Germany and before the UPC. Aylo later commenced a UK revocation claim concerning the ‘805 patent, which was also the subject of German infringement proceedings listed for December 2024.

Aylo sought expedition, principally to obtain a UK judgment before the German trial, or alternatively sought an earlier listing under the Patents Court Practice Statement. The proposed UK trial was estimated at six to seven days. The central issues were whether Aylo had shown sufficient urgency, the likely utility of a UK judgment in Germany, prejudice to DISH and other court users, and the application of the 12-month listing objective.

1. Expedition refused. Aylo established a genuine UK commercial connection and a real, although difficult to quantify, risk that a German injunction would disrupt its UK business. That was sufficient to satisfy any threshold requirement of real, objectively viewed urgency, but the urgency was modest.
2. The court applied the four factors identified in Gore v Geox [2008] EWCA Civ 622, as summarised in Petter v EMC Europe Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 480: good reason for expedition, interference with the administration of justice, prejudice to the opposing party, and other special factors.
3. Parallel German proceedings may be relevant. A UK judgment concerning an equivalent patent may influence the German court, and German courts are required to consider relevant decisions from other EPC contracting states. However, that factor is not strong enough by itself. The applicant must provide evidence of the commercial context showing why expedition is justified. The court adopted and applied the approach in Takeda v Hoffmann-La Roche [2018] EWHC 2155 (ChD) and Nicoventures v Philip Morris [2020] EWHC 1594 (Pat).
4. The utility of expedition was marginal. A trial in November or December would require a prompt judgment, and there was substantial uncertainty whether a UK judgment would materially affect the German court’s decision. The court could not require another trial judge to deliver judgment within a particular period.
5. DISH’s alleged preparation prejudice was unpersuasive. It should have anticipated a trial approximately one year after issuing proceedings. By contrast, moving the case into the busy autumn list risked serious disruption to other court users and the organisation of the Patents Court.
6. The same assessment applied under the Practice Statement. The 12-month period began when DISH issued the first UK proceedings in December 2023. The January 2025 trial window was within 12 months or shortly thereafter, and moving the trial to November or December exceeded the flexibility contemplated by the Practice Statement.
7. The trial was therefore not listed in November or December 2024. No costs order was made at the hearing.

First-instance procedural decision; no prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.