Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (2) [2001] EWCA Civ 2 (23rd January, 2001)

Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (2) [2001] EWCA Civ 2 (23rd January, 2001)

Confidentiality may be maintained for documents disclosed in litigation if their role in the trial was limited, the information is axiomatically confidential in the relevant industry, and disclosure is not necessary for public understanding of the case. The 'necessity' test for private hearings does not directly apply to post-trial confidentiality orders under CPR 31.22(2); the court must balance the public interest in open justice with the specific sensitivity and relevance of the document.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Lilly Icos Limited; Respondent/appellant: Pfizer Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (patent Revocation Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Confidentiality Order Post Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; confidentiality order made for page 2 of the schedule only.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents, Patent Litigation, Publicity of Court Proceedings, Use of Disclosed Documents Under CPR 31.22
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents Patent Litigation Publicity of Court Proceedings Use of Disclosed Documents Under CPR 31.22

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lilly Icos Limited

Petitioner/respondent

Pfizer Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (patent Revocation Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Confidentiality Order Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confidentiality should be maintained for page 2 (advertising and promotional expenses) of the patentee’s commercial success schedule after trial under CPR 31.22(2)
  2. 2 Whether the test of 'necessity' from Scott v Scott applies to post-trial confidentiality orders under CPR 31.22(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Confidentiality may be maintained for documents disclosed in litigation if their role in the trial was limited, the information is axiomatically confidential in the relevant industry, and disclosure is not necessary for public understanding of the case. The 'necessity' test for private hearings does not directly apply to post-trial confidentiality orders under CPR 31.22(2); the court must balance the public interest in open justice with the specific sensitivity and relevance of the document.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; confidentiality order made for page 2 of the schedule only.

Orders

  • Order under CPR 31.22(2) maintaining confidentiality for page 2 of the patentee’s Confidential Schedule of Commercial Success.
  • Main appeal dismissed; second appeal allowed in part.