Baxter Healthcare Corp & Anor v Abbott Laboratories & Anor [2006] EWHC 919 (Pat) (02 May 2006)

Baxter Healthcare Corp & Anor v Abbott Laboratories & Anor [2006] EWHC 919 (Pat) (02 May 2006)

Abbott's failure to timely review disclosed documents and raise the issue of amine impurities caused the late adjournment; therefore, Abbott must pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 919 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Claimant: Baxter Healthcare Limited; Defendant: Abbott Laboratories; Defendant: Central Glass Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation (application for Further Specification and Costs) / Interlocutory Application; Costs Order Following Adjournment
Outcome
Application for further specification not granted; costs order made against Abbott.
Legal Topics
Declaration of Non Infringement, Patent Revocation, Product and Process Description, Costs Following Adjournment
Intellectual Property Patent Law Declaration of Non Infringement Patent Revocation Product and Process Description Costs Following Adjournment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baxter Healthcare Corporation

Claimant

Baxter Healthcare Limited

Claimant

Abbott Laboratories

Defendant

Central Glass Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation (application for Further Specification and Costs) / Interlocutory Application; Costs Order Following Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Baxter must further specify the Product and Process Description for declaration of non-infringement and revocation of EP (UK) 0 967 975
  2. 2 Whether Abbott is responsible for late identification of possible amine impurities
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Abbott's failure to timely review disclosed documents and raise the issue of amine impurities caused the late adjournment; therefore, Abbott must pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for further specification not granted; costs order made against Abbott.

Orders

  • Abbott must pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment.
  • Only fluorinated amines resulting from Route 2 to be considered at trial unless Abbott explicitly raises other possibilities.