Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 3160 (Pat) (22 October 2013)

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 3160 (Pat) (22 October 2013)

The fair-minded and informed observer, considering all the circumstances including the remoteness and limited nature of the judge's past academic connection with Prof Baldwin, the passage of over 30 years, the judge's subsequent legal career, and the context of expert evidence in patent litigation, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Therefore, recusal is not required.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3160 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Resolution Chemicals Limited; Defendant: H. Lundbeck A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Application / Interlocutory Application for Recusal / Interlocutory Application for Recusal Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Revocation, Apparent Bias, Judicial Recusal, Expert Evidence, Waiver of Objection
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Judicial Ethics Patent Revocation Apparent Bias Judicial Recusal Expert Evidence Waiver of Objection

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resolution Chemicals Limited

Claimant

H. Lundbeck A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Application / Interlocutory Application for Recusal / Interlocutory Application for Recusal Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge (Arnold J) should recuse himself from hearing the trial due to a past academic connection with an expert witness (Prof Baldwin) to be called by the claimant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant (Lundbeck) waived its right to object to the judge's involvement by delay in raising the issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The fair-minded and informed observer, considering all the circumstances including the remoteness and limited nature of the judge's past academic connection with Prof Baldwin, the passage of over 30 years, the judge's subsequent legal career, and the context of expert evidence in patent litigation, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. Therefore, recusal is not required.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application by H. Lundbeck A/S for the recusal of Mr Justice Arnold is dismissed.