Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) & Anor [2021] EWHC 530 (Pat) (12 March 2021)

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) & Anor [2021] EWHC 530 (Pat) (12 March 2021)

The court had jurisdiction to vary or revoke the 16 December 2020 Orders as they had not been sealed and the EPO's revocation of the patent ab initio constituted a material change of circumstances. In the interests of justice and to avoid futile or inappropriate orders, the consequential orders (including injunction, damages inquiry, and costs) were set aside or revisited, as the Claimants were no longer entitled to substantive relief following the patent's revocation.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 530 (Pat)
Parties
First Claimant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited; Second Claimant: Flynn Pharma Limited; First Defendant: Generics UK Limited (trading as MYLAN); Second Defendant: Mylan UK Healthcare Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Claim / Judgment on Consequential Matters Following Trial and EPO Proceedings
Outcome
Consequential orders of 16 December 2020 revoked; Claimants not entitled to substantive relief; costs and other matters to be determined in light of EPO revocation.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Consequential Orders, Jurisdiction to Vary Orders, Costs, Effect of EPO Revocation
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Infringement Consequential Orders Jurisdiction to Vary Orders Costs Effect of EPO Revocation

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited

First Claimant

Flynn Pharma Limited

Second Claimant

Generics UK Limited (trading as MYLAN)

First Defendant

Mylan UK Healthcare Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Claim / Judgment on Consequential Matters Following Trial and EPO Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to vary or revoke the 16 December 2020 Orders after the EPO revoked the patent ab initio
  2. 2 Whether the orders should be revisited in light of the EPO decision
  3. 3 Appropriate disposition of costs and other consequential relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to vary or revoke the 16 December 2020 Orders as they had not been sealed and the EPO's revocation of the patent ab initio constituted a material change of circumstances. In the interests of justice and to avoid futile or inappropriate orders, the consequential orders (including injunction, damages inquiry, and costs) were set aside or revisited, as the Claimants were no longer entitled to substantive relief following the patent's revocation.

Court Disposition

Consequential orders of 16 December 2020 revoked; Claimants not entitled to substantive relief; costs and other matters to be determined in light of EPO revocation.

Orders

  • 16 December 2020 Orders revoked
  • No injunction or damages inquiry to stand