Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v Sandoz AG

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v Sandoz AG

Each generic defendant (Teva and Sandoz) is to pay the costs of its own action, with Teva solely liable for costs up to the commencement of Sandoz's action. A 60% interim costs award is reasonable, reflecting likely reductions on assessment. Permission to appeal is granted on the interaction of Conor and Philips v Asustek regarding obviousness and technical contribution.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Claimant/part 20 Defendant in HP 2021 000005: Sandoz AG; Defendant/part 20 Claimant HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005: Astellas Pharma Inc; Part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005: Teva UK Limited; Part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005: Sandoz Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation (costs and Permission to Appeal) / Consequentials Hearing After Judgment
Outcome
Costs order made; interim costs award set at 60%; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Patents, Obviousness, Permission to Appeal
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Patents Obviousness Permission to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046

Sandoz AG

Claimant/part 20 Defendant in HP 2021 000005

Astellas Pharma Inc

Defendant/part 20 Claimant HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005

Teva UK Limited

Part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005

Sandoz Limited

Part 20 Defendant in HP 2020 000046 & HP 2021 000005

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation (costs and Permission to Appeal) / Consequentials Hearing After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Allocation of costs between parties after patent litigation
  2. 2 Appropriate percentage for interim costs award
  3. 3 Permission to appeal on issues of obviousness and technical contribution

Ratio Decidendi

Each generic defendant (Teva and Sandoz) is to pay the costs of its own action, with Teva solely liable for costs up to the commencement of Sandoz's action. A 60% interim costs award is reasonable, reflecting likely reductions on assessment. Permission to appeal is granted on the interaction of Conor and Philips v Asustek regarding obviousness and technical contribution.

Court Disposition

Costs order made; interim costs award set at 60%; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Each generic defendant to pay its own costs; Teva solely liable for costs up to Sandoz action commencement.
  • Astellas to recover 60% of its costs by interim payment, apportioned as specified.