Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S

Resolution Chemicals Limited was not in privity of interest with Arrow Generics Limited at the time of the 2005 proceedings, had no concrete or actual interest in escitalopram, and did not stand by while Arrow litigated on its behalf. It would be unjust to bind Resolution to the outcome of the previous litigation. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties: Appellant/defendant: Resolution Chemicals Limited; Respondent/claimant: H. Lundbeck A/S
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 29 July 2013
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Estoppel, Privity of Interest, Patent Revocation, Abuse of Process

Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Estoppel Privity of Interest Patent Revocation 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Resolution Chemicals Limited

Appellant/defendant

H. Lundbeck A/S

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Patents Court)

Legal Issues

1 Whether Resolution Chemicals Limited is precluded by privity of interest or estoppel from challenging the validity of the Patent and SPC previously litigated by Arrow Generics Limited.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Resolution Chemicals Limited is not precluded from challenging the validity of the Patent or SPC.