Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd.

Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd.

The documents in question were 'disclosed' within the meaning of CPR 31 and subject to restriction under CPR 31.22(2). The judge was correct to restrict their general use, but the interests of justice required their release for use in the Apotex proceedings under appropriate confidentiality protections.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SmithKline Beecham PLC; Defendant/appellant: Generics (UK) Limited; Claimant/respondent: BASF AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
First appeal dismissed; second appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality, Patent Litigation, Use of Disclosed Documents, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality Patent Litigation Use of Disclosed Documents Abuse of Process

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Claimant/respondent

Generics (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

BASF AG

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents disclosed under confidentiality in one proceeding can be used in another proceeding
  2. 2 Whether the court should restrict or permit use of confidential documents under CPR 31.22(2)
  3. 3 Whether the documents in question are 'disclosed' within the meaning of CPR 31

Ratio Decidendi

The documents in question were 'disclosed' within the meaning of CPR 31 and subject to restriction under CPR 31.22(2). The judge was correct to restrict their general use, but the interests of justice required their release for use in the Apotex proceedings under appropriate confidentiality protections.

Court Disposition

First appeal dismissed; second appeal allowed

Orders

  • First appeal dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Second appeal allowed; documents released from CPR 31.22(2) order for use in Apotex proceedings with confidentiality protections as in BASF proceedings.