Omnipharm Ltd v Merial

Omnipharm is entitled to its costs as the winner; costs for maintenance of security should be assessed and set-off; payment on account of costs ordered; permission to appeal refused; security for costs need not be maintained pending Supreme Court application.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Omnipharm Limited; Defendant/appellant: Merial
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 29 January 2013
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Costs and Orders Determination
Outcome: Omnipharm awarded costs; payment on account ordered; permission to appeal refused; security for costs not maintained pending Supreme Court application.
Legal Topics: Patent Validity, Obviousness, Insufficiency, Costs, Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure

Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Obviousness Insufficiency Costs Security for Costs Appeal Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Omnipharm Limited

Claimant/respondent

Merial

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Costs and Orders Determination

Legal Issues

1 Appropriate order for costs of respondent’s notice and cross-appeal
2 Method of assessing costs for applications for maintenance of security
3 Payment on account of appeal costs

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Omnipharm awarded costs; payment on account ordered; permission to appeal refused; security for costs not maintained pending Supreme Court application.

Orders

Omnipharm awarded costs of appeal, cross-appeal, and respondent’s notice.
Costs for maintenance of security to be assessed and set-off against Omnipharm’s costs.