Warner- Lambert Company LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors [2015] EWHC 249 (Pat) (06 February 2015)

Warner- Lambert Company LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors [2015] EWHC 249 (Pat) (06 February 2015)

The claim under section 60(2) is unsustainable as a matter of law because Swiss form claims are process claims, not product claims, and settled UK and EPO jurisprudence precludes the interpretation advanced by Warner-Lambert. There is no real prospect of success and it would be wrong in principle to allow the claim to proceed to trial.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 249 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Warner-Lambert Company, LLC; Defendant: Actavis Group PTC EHF; Defendant: Actavis UK Limited; Defendant: Caduceus Pharma Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Interlocutory Application—summary Judgment on Section 60(2) Claim
Outcome
Claim under section 60(2) struck out; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Swiss Form Claims, Section 60(2) Patents Act 1977, Section 60(1)(c) Patents Act 1977, Infringement, Summary Judgment
Intellectual Property Patents Swiss Form Claims Section 60(2) Patents Act 1977 Section 60(1)(c) Patents Act 1977 Infringement Summary Judgment

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 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warner-Lambert Company, LLC

Claimant

Actavis Group PTC EHF

Defendant

Actavis UK Limited

Defendant

Caduceus Pharma Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Interlocutory Application—summary Judgment on Section 60(2) Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Warner-Lambert's claim under section 60(2) of the Patents Act 1977 should proceed to trial
  2. 2 Interpretation of Swiss form claims under UK law

Ratio Decidendi

The claim under section 60(2) is unsustainable as a matter of law because Swiss form claims are process claims, not product claims, and settled UK and EPO jurisprudence precludes the interpretation advanced by Warner-Lambert. There is no real prospect of success and it would be wrong in principle to allow the claim to proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Claim under section 60(2) struck out; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of defendants on section 60(2) claim
  • Claim under section 60(2) not allowed to proceed to trial