Generics (UK) Limited v Astrazeneca AB

Generics (UK) Limited v Astrazeneca AB

The Claimants are the successful parties and are entitled to their costs, subject to deductions for the classical obviousness case (10%), trial listing applications, and pleading amendments. The classical obviousness case was a distinct issue on which the Claimants were unsuccessful, justifying a 10% deduction, but it was not unreasonable to run, so AZ is not entitled to its costs of that issue. Deductions are also made for trial listing applications and pleading amendments as specified. AZ is not entitled to costs for the extended disclosure exercise or the dropped allegations, as the Claimants’ conduct was reasonable. Interim payments on account are set at 65% of the Claimants’ costs...

Parties
Claimant: Generics (U.K.) Limited; Claimant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Claimant: Teva UK Limited; Claimant: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited; Defendant: AstraZeneca AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Invalidity and Costs Determination / Judgment on Costs Following Trial and Appeals
Outcome
Claimants awarded costs subject to deductions; interim payments ordered; CPR 31.22 order granted.
Legal Topics
Patents, Costs, Disclosure, Interim Payments, Pleading Amendments
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Costs Disclosure Interim Payments Pleading Amendments

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics (U.K.) Limited

Claimant

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited

Claimant

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited

Claimant

AstraZeneca AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Invalidity and Costs Determination / Judgment on Costs Following Trial and Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to recover their costs as the successful parties
  2. 2 Whether deductions should be made from the Claimants’ costs for issues on which they were unsuccessful or for specific applications/amendments
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to costs for any issues or applications

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants are the successful parties and are entitled to their costs, subject to deductions for the classical obviousness case (10%), trial listing applications, and pleading amendments. The classical obviousness case was a distinct issue on which the Claimants were unsuccessful, justifying a 10% deduction, but it was not unreasonable to run, so AZ is not entitled to its costs of that issue. Deductions are also made for trial listing applications and pleading amendments as specified. AZ is not entitled to costs for the extended disclosure exercise or the dropped allegations, as the Claimants’ conduct was reasonable. Interim payments on account are set at 65% of the Claimants’ costs...

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded costs subject to deductions; interim payments ordered; CPR 31.22 order granted.

Orders

  • AstraZeneca AB to pay the Claimants’ costs, subject to a 10% deduction for the classical obviousness case and further deductions for trial listing applications and pleading amendments as specified.
  • AstraZeneca AB to make interim payments on account of costs: £698,000 to Viatris, £1,305,000 to Teva, and £1,437,000 to Glenmark, within 28 days.