Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/s
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon Mr Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 739 (Pat) |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC12C04455 |
| Date | 12 April 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 739 (Pat)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
The Hon Mr Justice Arnold
Case No: HC12C04455
Michael Tappin QC and Mark Chacksfield (instructed by Olswang LLP) for the Claimant Andrew Waugh QC and Miles Copeland (instructed by Wragge & Co LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 13-15 March 2013
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
Contents
| Topic | Paragraphs |
| Introduction | 1–7 |
| The witnesses | 8 |
| Factual background | 9–80 |
| Resolution | 10–17 |
| Resolution's relationship with the Arrow Group in 2001–2009 | 18–22 |
| Resolution's interest in citalopram | 19–26 |
| The 2002 citalopram litigation | 27–34 |
| Arrow Generics' citalopram product | 35 |
| Resolution's interest in escitalopram | 36–46 |
| The previous escitalopram litigation | 47–50 |
| Arrow Generics' escitalopram MAs | 51 |
| The Dutch citalopram MAs | 52 |
| The lactulose MA | 53 |
| The tibolone experiments | 54 |
| The genesis of the present proceedings | 55–80 |
| Lundbeck's primary application | 81–122 |
| The law as to privity of interest | 81–100 |
| The law as to joint tortfeasance | 101–103 |
| Is Resolution bound by privity of interest with Arrow Generics? | 104–111 |
| Is Resolution bound by privity of interest with Teva UK and/or Teva PI? | 112–122 |
| Lundbeck's secondary application and Resolution's cross-application | 123–154 |
| Principles applicable to summary judgment cases | 123–126 |
| The technical background etc | 127 |
| Obviousness over 884: the diol route | 128–140 |
| Obviousness over Bigler: the desmethyl route | 141–154 |
| Lundbeck's tertiary application | 155–163 |
| Summary of conclusions | 164 |
Introduction
In these proceedings the Claimant ("Resolution") seeks revocation of SPC/GB02/049 ("the SPC") for escitalopram in the name of the Defendant ("Lundbeck"). The claim is based on the alleged invalidity of the basic patent European Patent (UK) No. 0 347 066 ("the Patent"). Escitalopram is the S or (+) enantiomer of citalopram. Citalopram is an anti-depressant drug of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) type which was first synthesised by Lundbeck in 1972 and launched in 1989. Some time after it developed citalopram, Lundbeck devised the method for synthesising escitalopram described and claimed in the Patent and discovered that escitalopram was the active enantiomer of the racemate. This led to it launching escitalopram in 2002. Escitalopram has been hugely successful. Lundbeck was also the proprietor of a number of patents for citalopram and methods of making it which have now expired, including United States Patent No. 4,650,884 ("884").
On 3 January 2013 Lundbeck issued an application seeking:
i) summary judgment on the ground that Resolution is precluded from bringing its claim and/or relying on allegations in its claim by reason of cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel or abuse of process;
ii) alternatively, summary judgment on the ground that Resolution's claim has no real prospect of success; and
iii) in the further alternative, a conditional order that Resolution provide security for Lundbeck's costs of these proceedings.
The foundation for Lundbeck's primary application is that the validity of the Patent was previously challenged unsuccessfully by inter alia Arrow Generics Ltd ("Arrow Generics"), Teva UK Ltd ("Teva UK") and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd ("Teva PI"). It is common ground that Arrow Generics, Teva UK and Teva PI would be precluded by issue estoppel and the doctrine of abuse of process from challenging the validity of the SPC on the ground that the Patent is invalid. Lundbeck contends that Resolution is also precluded from doing so by virtue of privity of interest with Arrow Generics alternatively Teva UK/Teva PI.
The foundation for Lundbeck's secondary application is that not only has the validity of the Patent been upheld in the previous proceedings in this country, but also equivalents to the Patent have been held to be valid in proceedings in a number of other countries. Accordingly Lundbeck says that, even if Resolution is not bound by the result in the earlier proceedings, there is no real prospect that it will be able to demonstrate that the Patent, and hence the SPC, is invalid.
Resolution responded with an application of its own, in which it sought summary judgment in its favour on the estoppel/abuse of process point, alternatively its determination as a preliminary issue. It also sought permission to amend its Particulars of Claim and Grounds of Invalidity to add an additional item of prior art and directions for the trial of the proceedings with a degree of expedition.
These applications came before Roth J on 24 January 2013. On that occasion he made an order:
i) directing that there should be a trial of the following preliminary issue, namely whether Resolution is precluded from bringing this action by reason of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and/or abuse of process;
ii) directing that the applications (i) by Lundbeck for summary judgment on the ground that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success alternatively for a conditional order for security for costs and (by Resolution for permission to amend its Grounds of Invalidity be stood over to be heard at the hearing of the preliminary issue; and
iii) giving directions leading to a trial of the claim in November 2013.
In addition, Resolution gave an undertaking not to make, import, keep or dispose of escitalopram or any pharmaceutical composition containing escitalopram prior to final judgment and Lundbeck gave the usual cross-undertaking in damages.
The witnesses
The principal witness on the preliminary issue was Alan Greenwood, who has been the Managing Director of Resolution since 1986. In addition Resolution called Dr Derek McHattie, who was employed by Resolution from February 1993 to March 1996 and has been employed by Resolution in various capacities since January 199I also received statements from a number of witnesses who were not required to attend for cross-examination.
Factual background
I shall set out the factual background topic by topic and approximately chronologically in relation to each topic.
Resolution
Resolution was established in 1986 as a manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients ("APIs"). At that time it was part of the Amerpharm Group.
In 1994 the Amerpharm Group was acquired by Merck KGaA and became part of the Merck Generics Group. Whilst part of Merck Generics, Resolution continued to supply the APIs it had previously developed to Merck Generics and to third parties. It also worked on the development of three further products, namely citalopram, tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") and tibolone. It did not market any newly developed APIs during this period. It either manufactured the APIs which it supplied or sub-contracted other manufacturers.
In December 1999 Merck sold Resolution to Carlgrove SA. At this time Resolution's business consisted of servicing four API supply agreements with Merck Generics, a joint venture for the manufacture and sale of lactulose with another company and the continuation of the three development projects mentioned above. In 2000 Resolution engaged another company to develop latanoprost.
On 21 December 2001 Carlgrove sold Resolution to Arrow Group ApS. Arrow Group ApS was a holding company for a new group of companies founded by Anthony Tabatznik, who had previously founded and sold Generics (UK) Ltd. Between 2001 and 2009 the Arrow Group grew rapidly. Arrow Generics was another English company in the Arrow Group throughout this period. Resolution and Arrow Generics were sister companies within the Arrow Group.
The initial business model for most companies in the group other than Resolution was to buy in manufacturing authorisations ("MAs") for products. For such products, the MA would stipulate the manufacturer of the API and details of the manufacturing method. It would not have been possible for Resolution to take over the manufacture of such APIs.
After becoming part of the Arrow Group, Resolution continued to sell four APIs to Merck Generics, to be involved in the lactulose joint venture and to work on the development of citalopram, THC and tibolone. In 2002–2004 it developed cabergoline. Resolution sold latanoprost and cabergoline to companies in the Arrow Group, but those amounted to only about 4% of its sales during the period it was part of the Arrow Group. Conversely, while Resolution was part of the Arrow Group, companies in that group launched over 400 products, but only two contained APIs sourced from Resolution.
In 2009 the Arrow Group was purchased by Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc, which hived off Resolution in order to meet requirements imposed by the United States Federal Trade Commission. Since December 2009 Resolution has been an independent company which is majority owned by a US investment bank. The remaining shareholders are its management and employees. Resolution continues to sell cabergoline and latanoprost to Watson under long term contracts.
Since leaving the Arrow Group, Resolution has reviewed its operations and adopted a new business model which is more akin to that of a generic pharmaceutical supplier than that of an API manufacturer.
Resolution's relationship with the Arrow Group in 2001–2009
The ultimate beneficial owner of the Arrow Group, and hence of both Resolution and Arrow Generics, during this period was Mr Tabatznik. Mr Tabatznik was the Chief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
[1] Hon. Shawn K. Richards [2] Hon. Timothy Harris [3] Hon. Eugene A. Hamilton [4] Hon. Mark Brantley Applicants v [1] The Constituency Boundaries Commission [2] His Excellency the Governor General [3] The Prime Minister of St. Christopher and Nevis [4] Attorney General of St Christopher and Nevis Respondents [ECSC]
...Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465; Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 2416 Considered: Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S 2013 WL 5338207 Chancery Division (Patents Court); Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34; JSC TBA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWC......
-
Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S
...a specialist Deputy High Court Judge. Background 7 The general background to the matter is set out in my judgment dated 12 April 2013 [2013] EWHC 739 (Pat) (an appeal from part of which was dismissed by a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29 July 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 924) and in the j......
-
Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd (A company incorporated in Hong Kong) and Another v Independent Power Tanzania Ltd (A company incorporated in Tanzania) and Others
...Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 1 AC 1 at 32. The earlier authorities were also considered and usefully summarised by Arnold J in Resolution Chemicals v Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 739 (Pat) at [100]: "The conclusions which I draw from this survey of the authorities are as follows: i) The test fo......
-
PJSC National Bank Trust v Boris Mints
...or a finding of abuse of process (and I note Mr Justice Arnold was of a similar view in Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 739 (Pat), 36 Finally, I have already referred at Section C1 above to the even greater caution required in finding that a non-party is bound by the ......