Lilly Icos v Pfizer Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2002)

Lilly Icos v Pfizer Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 2 (23 January 2002)

The appeal was allowed because the document in question (page 2 of the schedule) played a very limited role in the trial, was only referred to in passing, and its disclosure was not necessary for public understanding of the case. The court accepted that advertising and promotional expenditure figures are axiomatically confidential in the pharmaceuticals industry and that, in this case, confidentiality should be maintained under CPR 31.22(2).

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 2
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Lilly Icos Limited; Respondent/appellant: Pfizer Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (patent Revocation Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents, Use of Disclosed Documents After Proceedings, Patent Litigation, Publicity of Court Proceedings
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Law Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents Use of Disclosed Documents After Proceedings Patent Litigation Publicity of Court Proceedings

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 4 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should make an order under CPR 31.22(2) maintaining confidentiality over a document (page 2 of a schedule) after trial
  2. 2 Proper test for restricting use of disclosed documents post-trial

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the document in question (page 2 of the schedule) played a very limited role in the trial, was only referred to in passing, and its disclosure was not necessary for public understanding of the case. The court accepted that advertising and promotional expenditure figures are axiomatically confidential in the pharmaceuticals industry and that, in this case, confidentiality should be maintained under CPR 31.22(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order made under CPR 31.22(2) maintaining confidentiality over page 2 of the patentee’s Confidential Schedule of Commercial Success