Heineken Supply Chain BV v Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 892 (Pat) (09 April 2020)

Heineken Supply Chain BV v Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 892 (Pat) (09 April 2020)

A two-week extension for reply evidence was not justified on the evidence provided; however, a modest extension to 17 April 2020 was warranted due to general COVID-19 disruption and temporary unavailability of a solicitor. The trial should proceed with evidence heard over three days starting 29 April 2020, with written and oral closings scheduled to avoid prejudice to either party.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 892 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Heineken Supply Chain B. V.; Defendant: Anheuser-Busch InBev S. A.; Claimant: Anheuser-Busch InBev S. A.; Defendant: Heineken UK Limited; Defendant: Beerwulf B. V.; Defendant: Heineken N. V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Dispute / Pre Trial Review (ptr)
Outcome
Application for two-week extension refused; modest extension granted; trial timetable adjusted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, COVID 19 Impact on Litigation, Remote Hearings, Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Case Management
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure Extension of Time COVID 19 Impact on Litigation Remote Hearings Patent Infringement Patent Validity +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heineken Supply Chain B. V.

Claimant

Anheuser-Busch InBev S. A.

Defendant

Anheuser-Busch InBev S. A.

Claimant

Heineken UK Limited

Defendant

Beerwulf B. V.

Defendant

Heineken N. V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Dispute / Pre Trial Review (ptr)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time for reply evidence should be granted due to COVID-19 disruption
  2. 2 Whether the trial start date should be postponed as a consequence of the extension application

Ratio Decidendi

A two-week extension for reply evidence was not justified on the evidence provided; however, a modest extension to 17 April 2020 was warranted due to general COVID-19 disruption and temporary unavailability of a solicitor. The trial should proceed with evidence heard over three days starting 29 April 2020, with written and oral closings scheduled to avoid prejudice to either party.

Court Disposition

Application for two-week extension refused; modest extension granted; trial timetable adjusted.

Orders

  • Reply evidence to be served by 17 April 2020.
  • Skeleton arguments to be provided by 27 April 2020.