SanDisk Philips-Sisvel – Pumfrey J on jurisdiction

Further to our earlier post about the SanDisk vs. Philips judgement by Pumfrey J, here is a verbatim account on what the court contemplated about the question to what extent this case leaves open issues for the Court of Appeal to decide on jurisdiction “I am of the view that if this jurisdiction needs to be worked out and if there is no substantial challenge to my approach to the cases such as they are, then this is a matter where the Court of Appeal should themselves decide is a suitable occasion for working out such principles as need to be worked out. I am not satisfied that on the materials that are available there is a reasonable prospect of success. I must acknowledge that further refinements in the statements of the law by the Court of Appeal might create a prospect of success where there is none. That possibility cannot be excluded, but it is not for me to exploit it and the application for permission must be made to the Court of Appeal. I think, at first instance, unless one is satisfied that there is an arguable case on the present state of the authorities, one refuses leave and one leaves it to the Court of Appeal to see if they want to have to say anything about it. It may be that in fact the one point which is slightly vulnerable, maybe I do not know is Domicrest. That is a first instance decision. None of the rest can I see even them doing anything, but I am bound by it. I am certainly bound by Domicrest, and that is a matter for the Court of Appeal, whether they wish to take it or not.”