| Abstract: | Legal context: The European Patent Convention inherently allows parallel revocationproceedings to take place in the EPO and the domestic patentcourts. As a result, parties to UK patent proceedings frequentlyapply for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings in the EPO.There is commonly assumed to be a presumption in favour of thisstay, so long as it does not amount to an injustice. Key points: This article reviews the UK case law that has followed the Courtof Appeal decision in Kimberly-Clark, to see if this presumptionin favour of a stay is sustained. These cases show that, whendeciding whether to order a stay, judges perform a balancingexercise of a number of considerations. In practice it appearsthat these considerations easily topple the presumption. Practical significance: By providing a comparison of the considerations put before thecourts in the past, this article seeks to aid practitionersin judging those factors likely to affect the success of a stayapplication. It also highlights the lack of authority at appellatelevel on whether it is lawful for patent courts not to ordera stay. |
