Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Inc

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Inc

Edwards is the successful party and entitled to costs, but a 20% deduction is appropriate to reflect issues on which it failed. Indemnity costs are not justified despite Cook's conduct in disclosure. Costs must be proportionate to the complexity and length of the case.

Parties
Claimant: Edwards Lifesciences AG; Defendant: Cook Biotech Incorporated
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Edwards awarded 80% of its costs, subject to assessment.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Costs Assessment
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Infringement Costs Assessment

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwards Lifesciences AG

Claimant

Cook Biotech Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following patent revocation and failed infringement counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded due to conduct in disclosure
  3. 3 Proportion of costs to be deducted for issues lost by claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Edwards is the successful party and entitled to costs, but a 20% deduction is appropriate to reflect issues on which it failed. Indemnity costs are not justified despite Cook's conduct in disclosure. Costs must be proportionate to the complexity and length of the case.

Court Disposition

Edwards awarded 80% of its costs, subject to assessment.

Orders

  • Edwards to recover 80% of its costs, to be assessed.
  • Interim costs order of £650,000 payable within 21 days.