Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs) [2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat) (27 June 2007)

Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs) [2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat) (27 June 2007)

GUK and Arrow achieved significant success by revoking the main product claims, but both sides succeeded on some issues. Substantial costs were incurred on failed novelty and obviousness attacks. Justice requires that GUK and Arrow recover 60% of their costs and pay Lundbeck 40% of its costs attributable to the two actions, reflecting the mixed outcome and the reasonable pursuit of certain issues.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Generics [UK] Limited; Claimant: Arrow Generics Limited; Claimant: Teva UK Limited & Teva Pharmaceutical Limited; Defendant: H. Lundbeck A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Patent Costs Judgment / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs apportioned: Lundbeck to pay GUK and Arrow 60% of their costs; GUK and Arrow to pay Lundbeck 40% of its costs attributable to their actions. No order as to costs between Teva and Lundbeck. Further calculation and resolution of CFA issues reserved.
Legal Topics
Patent Litigation, Costs Orders, Conditional Fee Agreements, Issue Based Costs Apportionment
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Litigation Costs Orders Conditional Fee Agreements Issue Based Costs Apportionment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics [UK] Limited

Claimant

Arrow Generics Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited & Teva Pharmaceutical Limited

Claimant

H. Lundbeck A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Costs Judgment / Post Trial, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purpose of costs?
  2. 2 How should costs be apportioned where both sides have partial success?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate approach to costs in complex patent litigation with multiple issues?

Ratio Decidendi

GUK and Arrow achieved significant success by revoking the main product claims, but both sides succeeded on some issues. Substantial costs were incurred on failed novelty and obviousness attacks. Justice requires that GUK and Arrow recover 60% of their costs and pay Lundbeck 40% of its costs attributable to the two actions, reflecting the mixed outcome and the reasonable pursuit of certain issues.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned: Lundbeck to pay GUK and Arrow 60% of their costs; GUK and Arrow to pay Lundbeck 40% of its costs attributable to their actions. No order as to costs between Teva and Lundbeck. Further calculation and resolution of CFA issues reserved.

Orders

  • Lundbeck to pay 60% of GUK and Arrow's costs of their respective actions.
  • GUK and Arrow to pay 40% of Lundbeck's costs attributable to the GUK and Arrow actions.