Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Sandoz Gmbh and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 216 (Pat) |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HP-2015-000049 |
| Date | 13 February 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 216 (Pat)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Arnold
Case No: HP-2015-000049
Richard Miller QC and Tim Austen (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) filed written submissions for the Claimant
Andrew Lomas (instructed by Olswang LLP) filed written submissions for the Defendants
Judgment Approved
On 21 December 2016 I dismissed an application by Sandoz to vary an interim injunction which I had granted against Sandoz by order dated 17 November 2015 for the reasons given in my judgment dated 21 December 2016 [2016] EWHC 3317 (Pat). It has subsequently been agreed between the parties that the costs of the application should be dealt with on paper.
Warner-Lambert contends that costs should follow the event, and therefore Sandoz should be ordered to pay Warner-Lambert's costs of the application since Warner-Lambert was the successful party. Sandoz contend that costs should be reserved to the trial judge on the grounds that I accepted that there had been a material change circumstances since 17 November 2015, but upon reconsidering the balance of the risk of the injustice concluded that it favoured the continuation of the injunction without variation. In those circumstances Sandoz contend that there is no successful party and that it will only be possible to determine which is the successful party after trial. In support of this argument Sandoz rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson [2001] FSR 1.
I entirely accept that the normal order where an interim injunction is granted upon the basis of an assessment of the balance of the risk of injustice is to reserve the costs to the trial judge for the reasons given in Desquenne et Giral, although the court retains a discretion to make a different order if the particular circumstances of the case warrant doing so (see Picnic at Ascot v Derigs [2001] FSR 2).
I do not accept that it follows that the costs of Sandoz's application should be reserved. I made an assessment of the balance of the risk of injustice in my judgment in Sandoz I. In order to succeed in their application, Sandoz had to show both that there had been a material change in circumstances and that, given the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Infringement - Annual Patents Review 2017
...Display Limited & Anr [2017] EWHC 2975 (IPEC) (22 November 2017) HHJ Hacon Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Sandoz GmbH & Anr [2017] EWHC 216 (Pat) (13 February 2017) Arnold J Icescape Limited v Ice-World International & Ors [2017] EWHC 42 (Pat) (23 January 2017) Mr John Baldwin QC ......