SmithKline Beecham Biologicals S.A. v Connaught Laboratories Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1999 |
| Date | 07 July 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Otton and Lord Justice Robert Walker
Practice - whether documents are in public domain
Whether a document disclosed in civil litigation had passed into the public domain, by virtue of its having been read to or by the court, or referred to in open court, was to be judged in the new context whereby the judge was invited to read material out of court to which, in open court, economical reference was then made.
Where, therefore, at the outset of patent revocation proceedings in open court the judge, who had read the relevant material out of court before the hearing, revoked the patent without opposition from the patent holder, documents on which his decision was based and to which he had referred compendiously in his judgment fell within Order 24, rule 14A of the Rules of the Supreme Court and might be disclosed by the petitioners outside the revocation proceedings if they wished to do so.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing an appeal by SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA from Mr Justice Laddie who, having revoked the patent held by Connaught Laboratories Inc relating to biologically pure and stable pertactin for use in a whooping cough vaccine, had held that SmithKline were not free to use specified documents otherwise than in the revocation proceedings in which they had been disclosed by Connaught.
The court stayed its order pending the outcome of any further appellate proceedings to the House of Lords.
Prior to the hearing of the revocation petition the judge read, out of court, the material suggested by counsel in a reading guide.
Immediately before the hearing Connaught indicated that they would surrender the patent, but the judge, stating that he had read the materials, concluded that he should revoke the patent and delivered judgment to that effect referring compendiously to the documents he had read.
Subsequently SmithKline wished to make some of the documents available for use in parallel patent proceedings in certain foreign jurisdictions and Connaught sought the destruction of documents disclosed and marked confidential in accordance with the parties' confidentiality agreement.
Mr Andrew Waugh, QC and Mr Adrian Speck for SmithKline; Mr Roger Henderson, QC and Mr Daniel Alexander for Connaught.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and another (Article 19 intervening)
...task of doing justice between the parties in the particular case." 34 Lord Bingham CJ took matters further in SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498, 511–512: "Since the date when Lord Scarman expressed doubt in Home Office v Harman as to whether......
-
Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd
...of that material before the trial opens, so that it is not necessary to make specific reference to it during the trial itself. In Smithkline Beecham v Connaught [1999] 4 All ER 498 [ Connaught] this court pointed out that the intent of (as it was then) RSC O24 r14A would be substantially fr......
-
William Clarke v Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Ltd
...in open court. Supporting these submissions, he placed reliance on the principles distilled in the cases of SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498, GIO Personal Investment Services Ltd v Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and IndemnityAssoc......
-
Eurasian Natural Resources Corpn Ltd v Dechert LLP [Ch D]
...be regarded as having entered into the public domain was said to be established by two decisions of the Court of Appeal: SmithKline Beecham v Connaught Laboratories [1999] 4 All ER 498 and Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand [2000] 1 WLR 2353. 52 SmithKline Beecham v Connaught Laboratories in......
-
SL Claimants v Tesco: High Court clarifies the confidentiality of documents referred to in separate criminal proceedings
...Civ 11 3 Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2013] EWHC 4478 (QB) 4 SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498 5 Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA and others v Akers and another [2014] 4 All ER 627 6 Dring (on behalf of the Asbestos Victims Support ......
-
Open Justice, Efficient Justice and the Rule of Law: The Increasing Invisibility of Special Leave to Appeal Applications in the High Court of Australia
...being in tension with open justice, see Lord Chief Justice Bingham in SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498. 43. The term is not used by the High Court. In Federal Court judgments, the term is mentioned briefly in obiter: Hinton Alpha Westmead Pr......