Sandoz AG & Ors v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH [2023] EWHC 3276 (Pat) (08 December 2023)

Sandoz AG & Ors v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH [2023] EWHC 3276 (Pat) (08 December 2023)

The presentation document was not 'mentioned' in a witness statement for the purposes of CPR 31.14, but extended disclosure was appropriate and proportionate under PD 57A para 18.1, given the document's relevance, ease of production, and the importance of the issues. The lateness of the application did not justify refusal, as no real prejudice or disruption would result. Bayer's resistance was unreasonable, and indemnity costs were justified.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 3276 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Sandoz AG; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Sandoz Limited; Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Accord Healthcare Limited; Claimant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Claimant: Teva UK Limited; Claimant: Cipla Limited; Claimant: Cipla (EU) Limited; Claimant: Amarox Limited; Claimant: Hetero Labs Limited; Claimant: Generics (UK) Limited; Claimant: Viatris Healthcare Limited; Claimant: Stada Arzneimittel AG; Claimant: Thornton & Ross Limited; Claimant: Genus Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation (application for Disclosure) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Patent Revocation, Obviousness, Disclosure of Documents, Extended Disclosure, Costs
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Revocation Obviousness Disclosure of Documents Extended Disclosure Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandoz AG

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Sandoz Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Accord Healthcare Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited

Claimant

Cipla Limited

Claimant

Cipla (EU) Limited

Claimant

Amarox Limited

Claimant

Hetero Labs Limited

Claimant

Generics (UK) Limited

Claimant

Viatris Healthcare Limited

Claimant

Stada Arzneimittel AG

Claimant

Thornton & Ross Limited

Claimant

Genus Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation (application for Disclosure) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presentation document/slides from the ACS 2004 conference are disclosable under the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 57A
  2. 2 Whether the document is 'mentioned' in a witness statement for the purposes of disclosure
  3. 3 Whether extended disclosure should be ordered varying a prior order of 'no extended disclosure'

Ratio Decidendi

The presentation document was not 'mentioned' in a witness statement for the purposes of CPR 31.14, but extended disclosure was appropriate and proportionate under PD 57A para 18.1, given the document's relevance, ease of production, and the importance of the issues. The lateness of the application did not justify refusal, as no real prejudice or disruption would result. Bayer's resistance was unreasonable, and indemnity costs were justified.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Bayer to disclose the presentation slides from the ACS 2004 conference to the claimants.
  • Bayer to pay the claimants' costs of the application on the indemnity basis, subject to assessment by a costs judge.