Hand Held Products, Inc. v Zebra Technologies Europe Limited & ors [2022] EWHC 640 (Ch)
This patent infringement / invalidity action concerns bar code scanning and imaging technology. The claimants are part of the Honeywell group of companies; the defendants part of the Zebra group. The claimants sued Zebra’s UK subsidiary and its US parent, but did not apply for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. Instead, they sought to proceed with the claim against the UK subsidiary leaving the position vis-à-vis the US defendant uncertain. The US defendant then issued a notice pursuant to CPR 7.7 demanding service of the Claim Form outside the jurisdiction, but in response the claimants purported to serve the US defendant within the jurisdiction at the UK subsidiary’s address on the basis that, pursuant to CPR 6.9 section 7, the address was a “place within the jurisdiction where the corporation carries on its activities; or any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction”.
Nugee LJ (sitting at first instance) applied the Court of Appeal’s decision in Adams v Cape Industries and held on the facts that the US defendant did not carry on activities at the UK defendant’s address, nor did it have a place of business there. Thus the purported service pursuant to CPR 6.9 section 7 was not good.
The Court also held that the overseas defendant did not have to use the procedure in CPR 11 to challenge whether there had been good service, and that the issuing of its CPR 7.7 notice did not amount to a submission to the jurisdiction.
Brian Nicholson QC and Christopher Hall act for Zebra