Pfizer Ltd v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anor

Pfizer Ltd v F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anor

The court declined to grant Arrow declarations because, following Roche's de-designation of the UK from all relevant patent applications, there was no longer any uncertainty or dispute regarding UK patent rights. The only real purpose of the declaration would be its use in foreign courts, which is not sufficient justification for the exercise of the court's discretion. The court found that Roche's conduct amounted to shielding but this did not alter the outcome given the absence of UK rights.

Parties
Claimant: Pfizer Limited; Defendant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG; Defendant: Roche Products Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Patent/intellectual Property / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Arrow declarations refused; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Arrow Declarations, Gillette Defence, Biosimilars, Supplementary Protection Certificates, Patent Prosecution, Jurisdiction of Declarations, Cross Border Patent Litigation
Intellectual Property Patents Arrow Declarations Gillette Defence Biosimilars Supplementary Protection Certificates Patent Prosecution Jurisdiction of Declarations +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pfizer Limited

Claimant

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

Defendant

Roche Products Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent/intellectual Property / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant Arrow declarations in the absence of any pending or future UK patent rights
  2. 2 Whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose, particularly in light of its potential effect in foreign jurisdictions (notably Belgium)
  3. 3 Whether Roche's conduct amounted to 'shielding' to avoid scrutiny of its patent portfolio

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant Arrow declarations because, following Roche's de-designation of the UK from all relevant patent applications, there was no longer any uncertainty or dispute regarding UK patent rights. The only real purpose of the declaration would be its use in foreign courts, which is not sufficient justification for the exercise of the court's discretion. The court found that Roche's conduct amounted to shielding but this did not alter the outcome given the absence of UK rights.

Court Disposition

Arrow declarations refused; claim dismissed