Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors [2002] EWHC 2556 (Patent) (28 November 2002)

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors [2002] EWHC 2556 (Patent) (28 November 2002)

There is a seriously arguable case of infringement of claim 11 of the patent, the construction of 'solvate' advanced by the claimants is at least arguable, damages would not be an adequate remedy due to likely market disruption and price collapse, pending amendment proceedings and section 62(3) do not preclude an interim injunction, and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2556 (Patent)
Parties
Claimant: Smithkline Beecham plc; Claimant: Glaxosmithkline UK Limited; Defendant: Apotex Europe Limited; Defendant: Neolab Limited; Defendant: Waymade Healthcare plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Patent Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Patent Infringement, Partial Patent Validity, Construction of Patent Claims, Adequacy of Damages, Amendment of Patents, Good Faith and Reasonable Skill in Patent Drafting
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Patent Infringement Partial Patent Validity Construction of Patent Claims Adequacy of Damages Amendment of Patents +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smithkline Beecham plc

Claimant

Glaxosmithkline UK Limited

Claimant

Apotex Europe Limited

Defendant

Neolab Limited

Defendant

Waymade Healthcare plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a seriously arguable case of infringement of claim 11 of UK patent 2,297,550
  2. 2 Whether the construction of 'solvate' in claim 11 supports infringement
  3. 3 Whether the fact that the claimants do not exploit the patent precludes an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a seriously arguable case of infringement of claim 11 of the patent, the construction of 'solvate' advanced by the claimants is at least arguable, damages would not be an adequate remedy due to likely market disruption and price collapse, pending amendment proceedings and section 62(3) do not preclude an interim injunction, and the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants restrained by interim injunction from infringing claim 11 of UK patent 2,297,550 pending trial or further order