Actavis Group Ptc Ehf (a company incorporated under the laws of Iceland) v Pharmacia LLC (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, USA)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2611 (Pat) |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HP 14 A 01503 |
| Date | 24 July 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2611 (Pat)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
London EC4A 1NL
Mr. Justice Arnold
Case No: HP 14 A 01503
Mr. Michael Tappin QC (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr. Thomas Mitcheson QC and Mr. Tim Austen (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) appeared on behalf the Defendant.
(Application to Stay Proceedings)
This is a renewed application by Pharmacia for a stay of these proceedings until the final determination of the parallel proceedings before the European Patent Office. The background is set out in full in my judgment of 11 July 2014 ( [2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat), and I will not repeat it here. As was set out in the postscript to that judgment at paragraph 33, following the circulation of a draft of the judgment to the parties, Pharmacia offered two additional undertakings in return for a stay of the proceedings. Those additional undertakings are summarised in paragraph 33 of the previous judgment and have subsequently been elaborated, together with the other undertakings offered by Pharmacia, under cover of a letter from Pharmacia's solicitors dated 23 July 2014.
Against that background, Pharmacia now seeks a stay of the proceedings on the basis of all of those undertakings. As can be seen from paragraphs 30 and 31 of my previous judgment, I concluded that a stay should not be granted on the basis of the undertakings offered by Pharmacia set out in paragraph 12 of that judgment. As I stated, it seemed to me that the competing considerations were finely balanced, but nevertheless they favoured the refusal of a stay. The key consideration that weighed with me in reaching that conclusion was that, having regard to the likely length of time it would take for the EPO proceedings to be resolved, the undertakings that were offered by Pharmacia, although they largely eliminated the commercial uncertainty to Actavis during the period of stay, did not address the uncertainty caused by the prospect that Actavis might be removed from the market by an injunction in, say, five years' time and might have to pay ordinary damages or account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eli Lilly and Company v Janssen Sciences Ireland UC (formerly Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy)
...of 1 per cent of net sales in the UK during the life of the patent. There was then a further judgment delivered two weeks later ( [2014] EWHC 2611 (Pat)) in which Arnold J reconsidered the matter. He reiterated that the competing factors were finely balanced, even though the EPO proceeding......