Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd & Ors v Apotex Europe Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 658 (23 May 2006)

Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd & Ors v Apotex Europe Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 658 (23 May 2006)

Non-parties to the proceedings, such as the Canadian companies, have no right to claim under the cross-undertaking in damages given in support of the interim injunction. English law does not recognize a general restitutionary claim for non-parties adversely affected by a 'wrongful' injunction. Claims for third party loss and restitution by non-parties are not maintainable. Only the estoppel argument raised by the Canadian companies is arguable and may proceed to trial.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 658
Parties
Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking: Smithkline Beecham plc; Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking: Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd; Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking: Glaxo Group Ltd; Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking: Apotex Europe Ltd; Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking: Neolab Ltd; Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking: Waymade Healthcare Ltd; Additional Claimant on the Cross Undertaking: Apotex Inc; Additional Claimant on the Cross Undertaking: Apotex Pharmachem Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on estoppel allowed to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Cross Undertaking in Damages, Restitution, Estoppel, Third Party Loss, Patent Infringement, Interim Injunctions
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Cross Undertaking in Damages Restitution Estoppel Third Party Loss Patent Infringement Interim Injunctions

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smithkline Beecham plc

Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking

Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd

Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking

Glaxo Group Ltd

Claimant/respondent on the Cross Undertaking

Apotex Europe Ltd

Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking

Neolab Ltd

Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking

Waymade Healthcare Ltd

Defendant/claimant on the Cross Undertaking

Apotex Inc

Additional Claimant on the Cross Undertaking

Apotex Pharmachem Inc

Additional Claimant on the Cross Undertaking

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-parties (Canadian companies) can claim under a cross-undertaking in damages given in support of an interim injunction
  2. 2 Whether a claim in restitution lies for non-parties adversely affected by a 'wrongful' injunction
  3. 3 Whether a party can recover third party losses under a cross-undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

Non-parties to the proceedings, such as the Canadian companies, have no right to claim under the cross-undertaking in damages given in support of the interim injunction. English law does not recognize a general restitutionary claim for non-parties adversely affected by a 'wrongful' injunction. Claims for third party loss and restitution by non-parties are not maintainable. Only the estoppel argument raised by the Canadian companies is arguable and may proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on estoppel allowed to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Claims by Canadian companies for restitution and third party loss struck out.
  • Only the estoppel-based claim may proceed to trial.