Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1109 (24 July 2003)

Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1109 (24 July 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to maintain the restriction on the use of the confidential documents in general (first appeal dismissed), but that in the interests of justice, and given the specific circumstances of the Apotex proceedings, the documents should be released for use in those proceedings under appropriate confidentiality protections (second appeal allowed).

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1109
Parties
Claimant/respondent: SmithKline Beecham PLC; Defendant/appellant: Generics (UK) Limited; Claimant/respondent: BASF AG; Defendant/appellant: SmithKline Beecham PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division / Court of Appeal Judgment on Two Appeals
Outcome
First appeal dismissed; second appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Patent Litigation, Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents, Use of Disclosed Documents in Subsequent Proceedings, Discovery and Inspection of Documents
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Patent Litigation Confidentiality of Disclosed Documents Use of Disclosed Documents in Subsequent Proceedings Discovery and Inspection of Documents

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Claimant/respondent

Generics (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

BASF AG

Claimant/respondent

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division / Court of Appeal Judgment on Two Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents disclosed under confidentiality in one proceeding can be used in subsequent proceedings under CPR 31.22(2)
  2. 2 Whether the court should restrict or permit use of confidential documents in related litigation
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of CPR 31.22 and related rules

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to maintain the restriction on the use of the confidential documents in general (first appeal dismissed), but that in the interests of justice, and given the specific circumstances of the Apotex proceedings, the documents should be released for use in those proceedings under appropriate confidentiality protections (second appeal allowed).

Court Disposition

First appeal dismissed; second appeal allowed.

Orders

  • First appeal dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Second appeal allowed; order made permitting use of the documents in the Apotex proceedings under confidentiality protections as in the BASF proceedings.