Aylo Premium Ltd & Anor v Aylo Premium Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat)
Fujikura Ltd & Anor v Sterlite Technologies Limited
30 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2138 (Pat)
High Court
Two companies were fighting over a patent. They agreed on a trial date range, but a listing officer picked October, not July, due to the defendant's scheduling conflicts. The judge decided the reason given for the conflict wasn't bad enough to change the date, saying the court shouldn't get involved in listing unless something seriously wrong happened.
Key Facts
- •Case Management Conference (CMC) in a patent infringement case.
- •Claimants (Fujikura Ltd and Fujikura Europe Ltd) sought to alter the trial listing from October 2024 to July 2024.
- •Defendant (Sterlite Technologies Ltd) is an Indian company with Indian-based executives.
- •Parties initially agreed to an accelerated trial date setting process.
- •Trial was initially listed for October 2024 due to the defendant's client representatives' unavailability in July.
- •Claimants argued the defendant's reasons for unavailability were inadequate and unconvincing.
- •The court considered the Chancery Guide's provisions on listing and the principles established in *DISH Technologies LLC v Aylo Premium Limited* [2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat).
Legal Principles
A party can apply to alter a listing decision if dissatisfied, following the procedure in the Chancery Guide.
Chancery Guide, paragraph 12.12
The court officer responsible for listing will consider counsel, expert, and witness availability, aiming for speedy disposal.
Chancery Guide, paragraph 12.18
Relisting will only be revisited if there is a 'clear and pressing reason'.
*DISH Technologies LLC v Aylo Premium Limited* [2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat)
Listing officers should be left to fulfil their duties; judicial intervention is justified only in cases of clear error, manifest unfairness, or bad faith.
Judge's own reasoning
Outcomes
The claimants' application to alter the trial listing was dismissed.
The court found that the claimants' arguments regarding inadequate information and urgency were not sufficient to justify interfering with the listing officer's decision. The court also rejected the claimants' attempt to treat the Chancery Guide as a statute.
Claimants' request for indemnity costs was rejected
The court did not find the application to be exceptional enough to warrant an award of indemnity costs.