Allen & Hanburys Ltd (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) v Generics (UK) Ltd (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Brightman,Lord Templeman |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1988 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1988] UKHL J1208-1 |
| Date | 08 December 1988 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1988] UKHL J1208-1
House of Lords
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Brightman
Lord Templeman
My Lords,
In the light of the answers given by the European Court of Justice in their judgment delivered on 3 March 1988 to the questions put to them by your Lordships' House on 31 July 1985 and of the further submissions of counsel for the parties, I propose that the appeal and cross-appeal be now disposed of by orders of the House in the following terms.
-
1. That the action be dismissed insofar as it concerns (a) an application for an injunction restraining the respondents from importing into the United Kingdom salbutamol or any other compound falling within claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 1,200,886 and (b) delivery up by the respondents to the appellants of any salbutamol imported into the United Kingdom in infringement of the said Letters Patent.
-
2. That the order of Falconer J. dated 7th December 1984 whereby he granted summary judgment in favour of the appellants on their motion brought pursuant to RSC Order 14 be restored insofar as he ordered:
-
(i) that an enquiry be held as to what damages (if any) the appellants have suffered up to the date of such enquiry by reason of the respondents' infringement of Letters Patent No. 1,200,886;
-
(ii) that the respondents do pay to the appellant any sum found due on the said enquiry together with interest thereon; and
-
(iii) that the costs of the enquiry be reserved.
-
-
3. That the order of the Court of Appeal of 23rd May 1985 be set aside insofar as it ordered:
-
(i) that the foregoing part of the said order of Falconer J. be set aside; and
-
(ii) that the respondents have leave to defend this action.
-
-
4. That the appellants be at liberty to proceed with the said enquiry notwithstanding the stay ordered by Falconer J. in his said order.
-
5. That save as aforesaid there be no order on the appeal or on the cross-appeal.
-
6. That there be remitted back to the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, all questions arising out of the cross-undertakings in damages given to that court by the appellants on 3rd October 1984 and 10th July 1986.
-
7. That the appellants do pay to the respondents the respondents' costs of
-
(a) The appellants'...
-
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Douglas (1st Respondent) Catherine Zeta-Jones (2nd Respondent) Nothern & Shell Plc (3rd Respondent) v Hello Ltd (1st Appellant) Hola S.A. (2nd Appellant) Eduardo Sanchez Junco (3rd Appellant)
...assignment or otherwise, the benefit of any other confidential information vested in the Douglases. In Allen & Hanbury Ltd v Generics Ltd [1986] RPC 203 at p 246 Lord Diplock said that a licence: "passes no proprietary interest in anything; it only makes an action lawful which would otherwi......
-
Dendron GmbH and Others v Regents of the University of California (Boston Scientific Ltd, Part 20 claimant)
...licenses under patents. The basic principle is stated by Lord Diplock in his judgment in Allen & Hanburys Ltd v. Generics UK Ltd [1986] RPC 203 in the following terms "A licence passes no proprietary interest in anything, it only makes an action lawful that would otherwise have been unlawfu......
-
Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding
...A licence is not property: it is merely permissive. They rely on Lord Diplock's well-known statement in Allen & Hanbury's v. Generics [1986] RPC 203 at 246: "A licence passes no proprietary interest in anything; it only makes an action lawful that would otherwise have been unlawful." 1374 S......
-
Guy Neale and others v Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd
...Ltd [1981] 1 Ch 91 (“Charmdale”) for copyright; and Lord Diplock in Allen & Hanburys Limited v Generics (UK) Limited and others [1986] RPC 203 (“Allen & Hanburys”) for patents. Jacob J also referred to the decision of Scott J (as he then was) in Crittall Windows Limited v Stormseal (UPVC) W......
-
Intellectual Property Law
...recognised that a licence is not property. It is merely permissive. As stated by Lord Diplock in Allen & Hanburys Ltd v Generics (UK) Ltd[1986] RPC 203 at 246: A licence passes no proprietary interest in anything; it only makes an action lawful that which would otherwise have been unlawful.......