Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2019

Onder 3.30 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2019

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2019, ECLI:NL:PHR:2019:1192.

18. In my view these provisions do not affect the principles stated by Jacob LJ in Nokia either, for three reasons. First, these provisions are not concerned with procedural fairness in litigation in Contracting States either. Secondly, Jacob LJ considered these provisions in Nokia at [94] and held that they were not relevant. Thirdly, the effect of an application for central limitation on pending English proceedings was considered by the Court of Appeal in Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 250, [2015] RPC 3. Kitchin LJ made it clear at [51]-[52] that it would not be an abuse of the process for a patentee to make a central limitation application, even if it would be an abuse for the patentee to apply to make the same amendment under section 75, following the trial in English proceedings.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/fdf4206ff198b99f7fc5e4b5e139d1b84e8d521c128f42d2884801705226aa6b. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt fdf4206ff198b99f7fc5e4b5e139d1b84e8d521c128f42d2884801705226aa6b, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 55300 tot 56248.