Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat) (22 January 2016)

Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat) (22 January 2016)

Given the significant differences in priority dates and subject matter between the CLL and RA patents, and the court's ability to accommodate two five-day trials within the required timeframe, split trials are appropriate to ensure clarity and efficient case management. The court rejects the argument that the application is premature and finds no undue prejudice to the defendants.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 188 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Celltrion Inc.; Defendant: Biogen Idec Inc.; Defendant: F. Hoffmann-La-Roche AG; Defendant: Genentech Inc.; Interested Party: Hospira UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Proceedings / Application for Case Management Directions (split Trial and Listing)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Patent Revocation, Case Management, Trial Splitting, Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Revocation Case Management Trial Splitting Pharmaceutical Patents

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

Parties

Celltrion Inc.

Claimant

Biogen Idec Inc.

Defendant

F. Hoffmann-La-Roche AG

Defendant

Genentech Inc.

Defendant

Hospira UK Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Proceedings / Application for Case Management Directions (split Trial and Listing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order split trials for revocation of three patents within twelve months of claim issuance
  2. 2 Whether to fix trial dates before pleadings are closed

Ratio Decidendi

Given the significant differences in priority dates and subject matter between the CLL and RA patents, and the court's ability to accommodate two five-day trials within the required timeframe, split trials are appropriate to ensure clarity and efficient case management. The court rejects the argument that the application is premature and finds no undue prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Split trials ordered for the revocation actions, to be listed as close as possible to 30th November 2016 with a short break between them.
  • Case Management Conference (CMC) to be scheduled after pleadings are closed; trial dates may be vacated at CMC if impractical.