Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 137 (14 February 2003)

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 137 (14 February 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining Apotex from selling the allegedly infringing product pending trial. There was a serious issue to be tried on infringement and validity. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for SB due to the risk of substantial, unquantifiable loss if Apotex entered the market, including price collapse and loss of market share. The damages claimed were not too remote, as the anhydrate and hemihydrate forms were interchangeable. There was a properly arguable case that the patent specification was framed with reasonable skill and knowledge. The judge's exercise of discretion disclosed no error of...

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 137
Parties
Claimant/respondent: SmithKline Beecham PLC; Claimant/respondent: GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Apotex Europe Limited; Defendant/appellant: Neolab Limited; Defendant/appellant: Waymade Healthcare PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Damages, Remoteness of Damage, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Damages Remoteness of Damage Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Claimant/respondent

GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Apotex Europe Limited

Defendant/appellant

Neolab Limited

Defendant/appellant

Waymade Healthcare PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain alleged patent infringement pending trial
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant or defendant
  3. 3 Whether damages claimed are too remote to be recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining Apotex from selling the allegedly infringing product pending trial. There was a serious issue to be tried on infringement and validity. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for SB due to the risk of substantial, unquantifiable loss if Apotex entered the market, including price collapse and loss of market share. The damages claimed were not too remote, as the anhydrate and hemihydrate forms were interchangeable. There was a properly arguable case that the patent specification was framed with reasonable skill and knowledge. The judge's exercise of discretion disclosed no error of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction restraining Apotex from selling the allegedly infringing product pending trial is upheld