Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 23 (31 January 2008)

Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 23 (31 January 2008)

The Patents Court's discretion to stay proceedings is wide and context-dependent; in patent cases, the EPC system allows parallel proceedings and does not create a presumption for stay. Where evidence shows that commercial certainty can be achieved significantly sooner in national proceedings than in the EPO, it is proper to refuse a stay. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a first instance judge's discretion unless there is an error of principle or the decision is plainly wrong.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 23
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Glaxo Group Limited; Defendant/appellant: Genentech Inc; Defendant/appellant: Biogen Idec Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Parallel Litigation, Patent Validity, European Patent Convention, Judicial Discretion
Intellectual Property Patent Law Stay of Proceedings Parallel Litigation Patent Validity European Patent Convention Judicial Discretion

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glaxo Group Limited

Claimant/respondent

Genentech Inc

Defendant/appellant

Biogen Idec Inc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (patents Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Patents Court stay revocation proceedings pending final outcome of EPO opposition proceedings?
  2. 2 Should the Court of Appeal interfere with the judge's discretion to refuse a stay?

Ratio Decidendi

The Patents Court's discretion to stay proceedings is wide and context-dependent; in patent cases, the EPC system allows parallel proceedings and does not create a presumption for stay. Where evidence shows that commercial certainty can be achieved significantly sooner in national proceedings than in the EPO, it is proper to refuse a stay. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a first instance judge's discretion unless there is an error of principle or the decision is plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of stay of revocation proceedings
  • Revocation action in Patents Court allowed to proceed