Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Rev 1

Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S Rev 1

The presumption under section 100(1) of the Patents Act 1977 was rebutted by compelling evidence, including regulatory disclosures and expert testimony. There was no reasonable prospect of success on the process claim. X's involvement as a supplier and provider of regulatory information did not amount to joint tortfeasorship, as there was no common design or concerted action with Generics to infringe the patent.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Generics (UK) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: H Lundbeck A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Patent / Appeal From Refusal to Amend Defence and Add Counterclaim in Patents Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Process Claims, Joint Tortfeasorship, Amendment of Pleadings, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Infringement Process Claims Joint Tortfeasorship Amendment of Pleadings Service Out of Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics (UK) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

H Lundbeck A/S

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Patent / Appeal From Refusal to Amend Defence and Add Counterclaim in Patents Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lundbeck should be allowed to amend its defence to add a counterclaim for infringement of process claim 6
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on the process claim against Generics
  3. 3 Whether X (the Indian supplier) can be joined as a joint tortfeasor and served out of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption under section 100(1) of the Patents Act 1977 was rebutted by compelling evidence, including regulatory disclosures and expert testimony. There was no reasonable prospect of success on the process claim. X's involvement as a supplier and provider of regulatory information did not amount to joint tortfeasorship, as there was no common design or concerted action with Generics to infringe the patent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no amendment to add process claim infringement or to join X as joint tortfeasor allowed.