Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation

Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation

The application for interim injunction fails because the appeal to the Supreme Court does not have a real prospect of success, and any harm to Lilly from refusal of the injunction is quantifiable and compensable in damages, whereas granting the injunction would cause unquantifiable harm to the generic claimants.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Actavis Group PTC EHF; Claimant/appellant: Actavis UK Limited; Claimant/appellant: Teva UK Limited; Claimant/appellant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Claimant/appellant: Generics (UK) Limited (t/a Mylan); Defendant/respondent: ICOS Corporation; Third Party/respondent: Eli Lilly and Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Post Judgment, Pending Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Obviousness, Pharmaceutical Patents, Balance of Convenience, Damages Assessment
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Obviousness Pharmaceutical Patents Balance of Convenience Damages Assessment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actavis Group PTC EHF

Claimant/appellant

Actavis UK Limited

Claimant/appellant

Teva UK Limited

Claimant/appellant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Claimant/appellant

Generics (UK) Limited (t/a Mylan)

Claimant/appellant

ICOS Corporation

Defendant/respondent

Eli Lilly and Company

Third Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Post Judgment, Pending Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted pending appeal to the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Assessment of quantifiable and unquantifiable harm to parties

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim injunction fails because the appeal to the Supreme Court does not have a real prospect of success, and any harm to Lilly from refusal of the injunction is quantifiable and compensable in damages, whereas granting the injunction would cause unquantifiable harm to the generic claimants.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted
  • Parties to proceed as per judgment