Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1703 (16 December 2004)

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1703 (16 December 2004)

Section 65 does not apply to costs of appeal; percentage-based costs orders are appropriate given the complexity and overlap of issues; Apotex entitled to 16% of costs below, SKB to 25% of costs of appeal.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1703
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Smithkline Beecham plc; Appellant/claimant: Glaxosmithkline UK Limited; Respondent/defendant: Apotex Europe Limited; Respondent/defendant: Neolab Limited; Respondent/defendant: Waymade Healthcare plc; Respondent/claimant: Beecham Group plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Costs Determination Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs allocated as specified.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Costs Allocation, Statutory Interpretation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Infringement Costs Allocation Statutory Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smithkline Beecham plc

Appellant/claimant

Glaxosmithkline UK Limited

Appellant/claimant

Apotex Europe Limited

Respondent/defendant

Neolab Limited

Respondent/defendant

Waymade Healthcare plc

Respondent/defendant

Beecham Group plc

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Costs Determination Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 65 of the Patents Act 1977 applies to costs of appeal
  2. 2 Appropriate allocation of costs between parties given mixed success
  3. 3 Effect of patent amendment and concession on costs under section 63

Ratio Decidendi

Section 65 does not apply to costs of appeal; percentage-based costs orders are appropriate given the complexity and overlap of issues; Apotex entitled to 16% of costs below, SKB to 25% of costs of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs allocated as specified.

Orders

  • Apotex awarded 16% of their costs below on a standard basis.
  • SKB awarded 25% of their costs of the appeal on a standard basis.