BASF AG v ME2 Crop Protection Ltd and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division (Patents Court)
JudgeMr Justice Laddie
Judgment Date25 May 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWHC 1342 (Pat),[2004] EWHC 1718 (Pat)
Docket NumberCase No: HC04C00294
Date25 May 2004

[2004] EWHC 1342 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Laddie

Case No: HC04C00294

Basf AG
Claimant
and
(1) Me2 Crop Protection Limited
(2) Gerald Mcdonald
Defendants

DR H LAWRENCE (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

MR M EDENBOROUGH (instructed by Halliwell Landau) appeared on behalf of the Defendants

Hearing date: Tuesday, 25 May 2004

Abpproved Judgment

Based upon the Tape Transcription of Smith Bernal WordWave Limited, 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG, Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr Justice Laddie Mr Justice Laddie

Mr Justice Laddie:

1

I have to deal with an application made by the claimant that the defendant should disclosed its source of the metazaclor which it is selling in this country under the name BOUNTY. Originally the first defendant, ME2 Crop Protection Limited ("Me2"), alleged that the product it was importing was made by or under or with the approval of the claimant, BASF AG ("BASF"), and that it was therefore legitimately available in this country under the exhaustion of rights doctrine which is part of European Community law. That was consistent with the terms of its marketing approval given by the Pesticide Safety Directorate ("PSD"). It now appears that it concedes that the product in issue in this action, although imported from abroad, does not come from BASF or any of its associates or licensees, and indeed it appears not to be within the scope of the approval granted by the PSD. In these circumstances the claimant says that it wishes to have details of the foreign supplier, because it may be that it will be in a position to take proceedings against it abroad.

2

That there is jurisdiction to make the order sought is not in dispute. Mr Edenborough for the defendant concedes as much. The question, it appears to me, is simply one of timing. As a result of an interlocutory injunction which I have already granted in favour of the claimant, there is no significant threat, on the evidence before me, that the foreign supplier will be supplying any more of the accused product to this market, at least in the immediate future.

3

Further, it should be borne in mind that the defendant, ME2, is alleging that the product itself is not an infringement of BASF's patent. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT