Eli Lilly & Company Ltd. v Neopharma Ltd & Anor

Eli Lilly & Company Ltd. v Neopharma Ltd & Anor

The court found that all requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief were met: there was an arguable case of patent infringement, disclosure was necessary to enable Eli Lilly to take action against Neolab's customers, and Neolab was mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing. The balance of convenience favoured Eli Lilly, as the risk of irreparable and unquantifiable damage to its business outweighed the potential harm to Neolab from disclosure. Neolab's pre-action conduct and lack of candour further justified the order.

Parties
Claimant: Eli Lilly and Company Limited; First Defendant: Neopharma Limited; Second Defendant: Neolab Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Interim Relief Application / Ruling on Application for Disclosure of Customer Information (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for disclosure granted
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Interim Injunctions, Disclosure of Information, Norwich Pharmacal Orders
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Interim Injunctions Disclosure of Information Norwich Pharmacal Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Lilly and Company Limited

Claimant

Neopharma Limited

First Defendant

Neolab Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Interim Relief Application / Ruling on Application for Disclosure of Customer Information (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order disclosure of customer names and supply details by the defendant in a patent infringement case at the interim stage
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief are met
  3. 3 Balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm to both parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief were met: there was an arguable case of patent infringement, disclosure was necessary to enable Eli Lilly to take action against Neolab's customers, and Neolab was mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing. The balance of convenience favoured Eli Lilly, as the risk of irreparable and unquantifiable damage to its business outweighed the potential harm to Neolab from disclosure. Neolab's pre-action conduct and lack of candour further justified the order.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure granted

Orders

  • Neolab to disclose the names and addresses of all persons to whom it has supplied Olanzapine Neopharma and any other products containing olanzapine, and the dates and quantities of each supply.