Eli Lilly & Co v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2024] EWHC 2474 (Ch) (18 September 2024)

Eli Lilly & Co v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2024] EWHC 2474 (Ch) (18 September 2024)

The court determined that the exclusion of Teva's in-house lawyers from the AEO club was not justified by clear and cogent evidence of real risk of harm or inadvertent disclosure. The balancing exercise, considering the proximity to trial and the prejudice to Teva, weighed heavily in favour of granting access. The Confidentiality Order does not preclude such an application, and the burden rests on Lilly to justify continued exclusion, which it failed to do except for one specific document relating to Lilly's commercial strategy.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2474 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: ELI LILLY & CO; Defendant / Applicant: TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Confidentiality Order in Ongoing Damages Proceedings / Interlocutory, Post Disclosure, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Disclosure, Attorney's Eyes Only (aeo), Damages Quantum, Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Commercial Law Confidentiality Orders Disclosure Attorney's Eyes Only (aeo) Damages Quantum Settlement Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ELI LILLY & CO

Claimant / Respondent

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Confidentiality Order in Ongoing Damages Proceedings / Interlocutory, Post Disclosure, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Teva's in-house lawyers should be admitted to the AEO confidentiality club
  2. 2 Whether the Confidentiality Order should be varied to allow broader access to AEO material
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of in-house lawyers is justified by risk of collateral use or inadvertent disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the exclusion of Teva's in-house lawyers from the AEO club was not justified by clear and cogent evidence of real risk of harm or inadvertent disclosure. The balancing exercise, considering the proximity to trial and the prejudice to Teva, weighed heavily in favour of granting access. The Confidentiality Order does not preclude such an application, and the burden rests on Lilly to justify continued exclusion, which it failed to do except for one specific document relating to Lilly's commercial strategy.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Teva's in-house lawyers Dr. Wright and Mrs. Indraccolo are admitted to the Teva AEO club and may access all AEO material except for one document relating to Lilly's commercial strategy, which is carved out pending further application.
  • Reciprocal access granted to Lilly's in-house lawyer for Teva's AEO material.