Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company [2013] EWCA Civ 517 (21 May 2013)

Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company [2013] EWCA Civ 517 (21 May 2013)

Lilly's solicitors objectively consented to accept service for Actavis Group and its relevant subsidiaries for all patent designations, and service was validly effected under CPR 6.9 due to Lilly's business activities in the UK. CPR 63.14 does not permit service for foreign patent designations. The appeal is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 517
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Actavis Group hf; Respondent/claimant: Medis ehf; Appellant/defendant: Eli Lilly & Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Jurisdiction, Service of Proceedings, Forum Non Conveniens
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Jurisdiction Service of Proceedings Forum Non Conveniens

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actavis Group hf

Respondent/claimant

Medis ehf

Respondent/claimant

Eli Lilly & Company

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lilly's solicitors agreed to accept service of proceedings for all relevant parties and designations
  2. 2 Whether service was validly effected under CPR 6.9
  3. 3 Whether service was validly effected under CPR 63.14

Ratio Decidendi

Lilly's solicitors objectively consented to accept service for Actavis Group and its relevant subsidiaries for all patent designations, and service was validly effected under CPR 6.9 due to Lilly's business activities in the UK. CPR 63.14 does not permit service for foreign patent designations. The appeal is dismissed and the English court has jurisdiction over all claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Court has jurisdiction to hear all claims including foreign patent designations
  • Second action is redundant