Summary
The claimants were companies involved in the production of the “Star Wars” film. The defendant made the armour (versions of which he was selling to the general public). The claim was for copyright infringement, damages and injunctive relief.
An important issue whether the English had jurisdiction in relation to an US copyright infringement. This raised an issue whether the claims for a foreign copyright infringement were justiciable. Having answered this question in affirmative, the English High Court assumed jurisdiction under Article 2 of Brussels I. On 31st July 2008, Mr Justice Mann held that:
“266 I am therefore prepared to conclude that an English court can, and in an appropriate case should, determine at least questions of infringement of foreign copyright cases. Those cases will include cases where subsistence is not in issue. I would not, however, hold that questions of subsistence can never be decided here. In land cases incidental questions of title can apparently now be considered. I can see no reason why the same should not apply to copyright.
[…]
271 […] at least so far as copyright is concerned, the whole of a foreign copyright claim, no matter how fundamental the points, might be capable of being litigated here. While I do not think I would shrink from that conclusion if it was necessary to reach it, I do not believe I have to go that far. What I need to consider is whether, in the light of my conclusions (which I reach) that infringement issues are certainly justiciable here in an appropriate case, and that at least other incidental issues are as well, the actual claims that are made can be brought here and, if so, whether they are made out. That involves considering what those claims are, what the issues are, and what reasons there are for litigating here as opposed to the US. I deal with those points in the next section.
[…]
275 […] the most compelling point in favour of this court determining the US copyright claim is that referred to in the preceding section, namely that Mr Ainsworth has not fully accepted that the US court should do so, in a manner which is capable of bringing the claim home to him. He did not actually accept the jurisdiction of the US courts, with the effects referred to elsewhere in this judgment, namely that the US judgment cannot be enforced against him. In the light of that it would be strange for this court to accede to a submission that the claim should not be brought here because the US is the only appropriate place to bring it. In those circumstances it is appropriate that the claim be brought here. I so determine.” [266, 271, 275]
An appeal was made to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed on the non-justiciability point.
Another appeal was made before the UK Supreme Court. The UK Supreme Court held the claims were justiciable, and the English courts had jurisdiction under Article 2.